To use the 'I' prefix for interfaces or not to_问答_开发者

That is the question? So how big a sin is it not to use this convention when developing a c# project? This convention is widely used in the .NET class library. However, I am not a fan to say the least, not just for asthetic开发者_如何学Go reasons but I don't think it makes any contribution. For example is IPSec an interface of PSec? Is IIOPConnection An interface of IOPConnection, I usually go to the definition to find out anyway.

So would not using this convention cause confusion?
Are there any c# projects or libraries of note that drop this convention?
Do any c# projects that mix conventions, as unfortunately Apache Wicket does?

The Java class libraries have existed without this for many years, I don't feel I have ever struggled to read code without it. Also, should the interface not be the most primitive description? I mean IList<T> as an interface for List<T> in c#, is it not better to have List<T> and LinkedList<T> or ArrayList<T> or even CopyOnWriteArrayList<T>? The classes describe the implementation? I think I get more information here, than I do from List<T> in c#.

The difference between Java and C# is that Java allows you to easily distinguish whether you implement an interface or extend a class since it has the corresponding keywords implements and extends.

As C# only has the : to express either an implementation or extension, I recommend following the standard and put an I before an interface's name.

It's bad practice in my opionion too. The reasons why, additional to yours are:

The whole purpose of interfaces is to abstract away implementation details. So it shouldn't matter if you call a method with a IParam or Param.
Elaborated tools have their own possibilities to mark interfaces with an icon.
If your eye is searching in a IDE for a name, the most significant part is the beginning of a string. Maybe your classes get sorted by alphabet, and now you have a block of similar names, all starting with I... together. They look similar, while it would be of advantage to distinguish them easily. It's ergonomical wrong to use an I-prefix.
Even more annoying: ImplList, ImplThat, AFoo for an abstract Foo, AImplFooBar for an abstract Foo, which implements Bar? SSomething as Singleton, or SMath for a static class? Stop it! :)

With respect, in your post you are only considering your needs (I, I, I), and not the needs of the readers of your code. If you are a one-man shop, then fair enough, but if your code if ever read by others, then consider that they will be expecting interfaces to have an I prefix--that is just the way it is in .Net, and too many people are used to it to change now.

Also, it would help if you used more readable names for classes. What is PSec? How can I tell whether IPSec is an interface, when I can't even tell what PSec is? If instead PSec was renamed to e.g., PersonalSecurity, then IPersonalSecurity is much more likely to be an interface.

Using I for interfaces goes against the whole point of an interface imo, that it is a connector that you can plug different concrete implementations in to dependencies.

An object that uses the database needs a DataStore, not an IDataStore, and it should be up to configuration whether that gets a DatabaseDataStore or a FileSystemDataStore or whatever plugged into it (or a MockDataStore for testing).

Read this and move on. If you're using Java, follow the Java naming conventions.

I think the main reason for the I-Prefix is not that those using it can see it's an interface but that those implementing/deriving from existing classes and interfaces can see more easily wether it's an interface or base class.

Another advantage is that it prevents stupid things like (If my Java memory serves me correctly):

List foo = new List(); // Why does it fail?

The third advantage is refactoring. If you move through your objects and read the code you can see where you forgot to code-by-interface. "A method accepting something with a type not prefixed with I? Fix it!".

I used it even in Java and found it quite usefull, but it always depends on the guidelines for your company/team. Follow them, no matter how stupid you may think they are, some day you will be happy they exist.

Ask yourself: If my IDE could give me some hint in the text (e.g different colour, underline, italic...) that the type was an interface would I still bother?

Sounds like you are naming the types like that just so you can tell from the name something about parts of the definition other than the name.

It's not a sin per se, it's best practice. It makes things a lot more readable all in all. Also, think about it. IMyClass is the interface to MyClass. It just makes sense, and stops unnecessary confusion. Also remember the : syntax vs. implements/extends. Lastly, you can bypass all of this by simply checking the tooltips/go to in VS, but for pure readability, the standard is important in my opinion.
Not that I'm aware of, but I'm sure they exist.
Haven't seen any, but I'm sure they exist.

Best practices override convention sometimes, in my opinion. While I may not personally like the convention, not using it goes against the best practice that has been in place for longer than I care to think about.

I would look at it more from the point of how other people do it, in this case. Since 99% of the common world will be prefacing with the "I", that is good enough to keep this best practice. If you have to bring in a contractor or on-board a new developer, you should be able to focus on the code and not have to explain/defend choices that you made.

It has been around long enough, and is ingrained well enough, that I don't expect it to change in my lifetime. It is just one of those "unwritten rules", better defined as an "unwritten best practice", that will probably outlive me.

I would say that not following this convention would get you down to .NET hell. It's a convention that's almost as important to me as using self in instance methods in Python.

I don't see any good reason to do this. 'Extends' vs 'implements' already tells you whether you are dealing with a class or an interface in the cases where it actually matters. In all other cases the whole idea is that you don't care.

In my opinion the biggest reason "I" is often prefixed is that the IDEs for both Java (Eclipse) and .NET (V Studio) do not make it extremely clear that the Class you are looking at is in fact an interface. The package browser in eclipse shows the same icon till you expand the class file and the font of an Interface declaration is not any different than a class.

An Example would be if I type:

ISomeInterface s = factory.create();

ISomeInterface should atleast have some sort of font modification to show that its an interface (like italics or underline).

The other big reason is in the Java world that people prefix with "I" is that it makes it easier in Eclipse to do a "Ctrl-Shift-R" and search for only interfaces.

This is important in the Java/Spring world where you need interfaces as your collaborators if you plan on using any AOP magic or some other Dynamic proxies.

Than you have the nasty choice of either prefixing your interface with "I" or suffixing your implementation class with "Impl" like ListImpl. I abhor the suffixing of classes with "Impl" to make the interface and concrete differ in name and prefix the prefix of "I".

In general I try to avoid making lots of interfaces.

In my own code I would never prefix with "I". I'm only give some reasons why people do it which is for old code consistency.

conventions exist to help all of us. If there is a chance another .net developer will be working with you then yes, follow the convention.

One idea is that the "I" part can be followed by a verb, stating what classes that implement the interface does; like ISaveXmlData, forming a nice human language name.

The key thing is consistency - as long you stick to having I prefixed to all interfaces or none at all, it's a matter of preference.

I use the I prefix for interfaces at work since the existing code already uses it for a naming convention for each interface. I find it more intuitive to quickly determine if a class implements an interface or another class simply by looking for the I prefix in the name of the base class.

On the other hand, some of the older projects at work don't use this naming convention and this makes the code slightly less readable, but it might just be that I'm used to the prefix.

Look at the BCL. In the Base Class Libraries you have IList<>, IQueryable, IDisposable. If you don't prepend it with a 'I', how would people know it's an interface other than going to the definition?

Anyways, just my 2 cents

You can choose all names in your program how you like, but it's a good idea to hold naming conversion, if not you only will be read the program.

Usage of Interfaces is good not only if you design you own classes and interfaces. In some cases you makes other accents in your program it you use interfaces. For example, you can write code like

SqlDataReader dr = cmd.ExecuteReader (CommandBehavior.SequentialAccess);
if (!dr.HasRows) {
    // ...
}
while (dr.Read ()) {
    string name = dr.GetString (0);
    // ...
}

or like

IDataReader dr = cmd.ExecuteReader (CommandBehavior.SequentialAccess);
if (!dr.HasRows) {
    // ...
}
while (dr.Read ()) {
    string name = dr.GetString (0);
    // ...
}

the last one have looks like the same, but if you are using IDataReader instead of SqlDataReader you can easier to place some parts which works with dr in a method, which works not only with SqlDataReader class (but with OleDbDataReader, OracleDataReader, OdbcDataReader etc). On the other hand your program stay working exactly quick as before.

Updated (based on questions from comments):

The advantage is, like I written before, if you'll separate some parts of you code which work with IDataReader. For example, you can define delegate T ReadRowFromDataReader<T> (IDataReader dr, ...) and use it inside of while (dr.Read ()) block. So you write code which is more general as the code working with SqlDataReader directly. Inside of while (dr.Read ()) block you call rowReader (dr, ...). Your different implementations of code reading rows of data can be placed in a method with signature ReadRowFromDataReader<T> rowReader and place it as a actual parameter.

With the way you can write more independent code working with database. At the first time probably usage of generic delegate looks a little complex, but all code will be really easy to read. I want to accentuate one more time, that you really receive some advantages of using interfaces in this case only if you separate some parts of the code in another method. If you don't separate the code, the only advantage which you receive is: you receive code parts which are written more independend and you could copy and paced this parts easier in another program.

Usage of names started with 'I' makes easier to understand that now we are working with something more general as with one class.

I stick to the convention only because I have to, if I am to use any interfaces in the BCL and maintain consistency.

I don't like the convention, either.

Cannot believe it that so many people hate the 'I' prefix. I love the prefix 'I'. Here is why:

Are abstract and interface different? Yes
Do I care the difference as a developer? Yes, but not always.
When do I need to care?

Design discussion(When I draw on the board, prefix 'I' clearly telling everyone it's an interface) Read existing code(When I see prefix 'I', clearly I know it's an interface. There'are exceptions for words start with 'I', but very few cases)

Do I always need 'I'? No. But I want consistency, so YES.

With just one prefix 'I', it avoids so much communication overhead.

I think the real question in case of .NET should be: why do we ever need to distinguish between a class and an interface in a client code?

And for the C# & .NET there is a shameful answer - because someone invented an explicit interface implementations language support. A thing that is in my opinion a complete mess, because it allows to break a Single Responsibility Principle in an invisible way to the caller. Lets assume we have an IList interface and a List class.

This is only by convention that List.Count() does the same thing as IList.Count() does for the class. Normally you can't be so sure. As for me explicit interface implementation is a hidden form of method overloading done in the most wrong way ever. Let's assume like in old native languages that the instance reference is a first argument of a called method.

Now we have int Count(IList list) and int Count(List list). From the language point of view these are two separate methods that clearly advertise their responsibility - one can work with a more abstract IList, and another with the specific implementation List. But this is clearly visible here! No one would expect that both methods return the same value, because the more specific method may retrieve extra properties etc. It is however non obvious in the C# language in an explicit interface implementation form, because the caller is non aware which form is actually used - compiler knows, but I as a programmer might be unaware.

Unless I know if I call a class method or an interface method! I think it is a source of this somehow stupid convention for interfaces. If you use types named without the "I" prefix - especially in method arguments and return types - you may be unaware of whether you call a class instance method or an interface method.

As a good programmer using SOLID principles you should work with interfaces all the time - as long it is possible, especially if you are aware of explicit implementations.

This is in my opinion a hidden purpose of naming C# interfaces is this way - to cover the bad design of explicit interface implementations. You may not agree, but think twice about it - how could you ever make a method overloading feature that is effectively hidden from the calling site without expecting that a naming convention will naturally appear in order to manage it?