CODEWITHSUNDEEP
javainterface
jiafu
jiafu

Reputation: 6546

interface and implement's name, which is better?

public interface MemcachedAccessor {

     void set(String key, Object value, int cacheTime, long timeout,
        TimeUnit timeUnit);

     Object get(String key);
}

I have one interface: MemcachedAccessor and an implementation: MemcachedAccessorImpl.

Which name style is better?

MemcachedAccessor and MemcachedAccessorImpl

or

MemcachedAccess and MemcachedAccessImpl

?

any rules?

Upvotes: 0

Views: 217

Answers (4)

maba
maba

Reputation: 48045

The interface could be even more general:

public interface CacheAccessor {
}

While the implementation shows the intent (to access a Memcached distributed cache):

public class MemcachedAccessor implements CacheAccessor {
    ...
}

Upvotes: 7

Bernd Ebertz
Bernd Ebertz

Reputation: 1327

I'd only use names like accessor when issueing a command pattern or so. In this it's

class MemCache implements Cache {
}

Upvotes: 2

Less
Less

Reputation: 3207

If it is an interface, you'll most certainly avoid *Impl, because it indicates Implementation of the interface.

EDIT
This answer was posted before the question was edited by another user, but ok, keep down-voting :)
In addition, my personal preference is to use .Net style for instantly visible clarity: interface would be ICachedAccessor, and the class implementing it would be CachedAccessor.

Upvotes: 1

Dave Newton
Dave Newton

Reputation: 160170

Just to be contrarian, I'll say neither, and instead vote for:

Memcacheable and DefaultMemcacheable or:

Memcached and DefaultMemcached

There are no "rules" per se, but "-able"/"-ible" interface names are pretty common. The only real rule is to name things in a way that clearly and concisely indicates their intent. I extend that a bit to try and make sure that names (hence code) sound good when read out loud, like the code is telling a story.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions