Re: Named fields in enum constant declarations
jebblue wrote:
I can't think of one side effect of using this patter[n] so thanks for
saying that Arne.
Clearly you have not read up on it, then. I suggested the canonical
explanation upthread. Did you even try to read it?
<http://books.google.com/books?id=ka2VUBqHiWkC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=Constant+Interface+antipattern+Java>
The constant interface pattern is a poor use of interfaces. ...
Also:
<http://www.exforsys.com/tutorials/j2ee/new-features-in-java-5-from-programmers-point-of-view.html>
this approach conflicts with the object orientation of Java language.
Such constants are implementation details for a class but if the class
accesses them by implementing an interface they become a part of public
access (API) of the class. It means implementation details are being
linked as API here.
jebblue wrote:
Eclipse is the world's best IDE and it uses them so I feel like I'm
Editor War! Editor War!
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war>
Of course all smart people know that NetBeans is the world's best IDE! :-)
People who like JEdit and others disagree with both of us.
in good company. I like the explicit nature of naming conventions
If Eclipse jumped off a bridge, would you do so also?
Seriously, Eclipse is in the distinct minority here. Most Java projects do
not do that. See my list upthread of notable projects that do not prefix
interface names with "I", such as the Google Web Toolkit.
like an "I" to denote that it's an interface. I think some people need
to read Peter van der Linden's Deep C Secrets, explicit is always good.
The "I" prefix isn't "explicit", it's redundant. Anyway, it's always bad to
generalize. Always. (Get it?)
Whether a type is an interface or not is not supposed to be revealed, if one
is programming type-wise. One of the principles of O-O development is to hide
implementation details. Prefixing a type with "I" reveals an implementation
detail. And it adds nothing to the understanding of the type.
To look at it another way, for the most part all types in a given program
layer from a lower layer should be interfaces anyway, so prefixing the "I" is
redundant.
It also makes the type harder to look up in the Javadocs. It's like the index
for the Monty Python book of all their scripts, /All the Words/, wherein every
index entry is listed under "T" for "The one about ...".
If you must prefix your interface names with "I", I guess we can't stop you.
But do you prefix all your class names with "C"? I hope not. Not even
Eclipse in its strangeness does that. These prefix warts do not increase the
expressiveness of type names a jot.
--
Lew