james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Danny Angus" <da...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [management] 2xVirtualUserTableManagement
Date Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:33:29 GMT
> Maybe It whould be better to call the Implementation
> org.apache.james.management.VirtualUserTableManagementImpl

Just my 2c here ... but ...
 I'm not a big fan of naming implementations with "impl". Why? Well
the purpose of an interface is to describe an abstract class if thing
or a generalised service, a purpose if you like, and an implementation
is a specific realisation of the abstract notion. Therfore I take the
view that implementations should be differentiated by their nature,
not their purpose. So if you have, for example, a MailBox (interface)
and a FileMailBox (impl), or you could differentiate in the package
naming e.g. file.MailBox (impl) and service.MailBox (interface). If
you can't differentiate between purpose and implementation then I
would question whether you really need the interface at all.

That will only help this discussion if there are specific
characteristics of the implementation.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message