Names
Reveal your Intent
Intent : Nawaya in Arabic
Variables are all around the programm having good names will help read ...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Hungarian notation is still alive:
class Logger implements ILoggerI hate the prefix "I".
Have you tried the contract naming? Instead of
Iit would beLoggerContract.No, in my opinion it's bad just the same. I use adjectives derived from the names of the required methods. The interface tells the class what capabilities it must have. Contract tells word contract only, no ability.
Indeed. It's an odd dissimilarity between C# and Java, that in Java it's the interfaces that are typically/often seen as primary: you have a Car interface and a CarImpl class (or rather, a specific type of car). After that, the user of the Car instance should only care about the instance being a Car, not which specific kind of car, apart from what can be gleaned via the interface's methods.
Interface first, implementation last.
IPretend that the 'I' prefix in interface names acts as an indicator of the action or capability encapsulated by the interface. By adhering to this idea, we anthropomorphize our interfaces, making it easier to understand their roles.
Some examples:
ILog
IWriteToDatabase
IReadFromDatabase
IAuthenticateUsers
IPostComments
For anthropomorphize our interfaces use adjectives:
i feel you
How would you name your interfaces for dependency injection?
It depends on what abilities will be required from the injected object.
ILoggeris not an ability.This is the misinterpretation (not by the author) of the Hungarian notation. If you want to learn more about it, read this article from Joel Spolsky. It was not about types as we mean them.