This posting refers 2 the UMLdiag in http:/www.javareport.com's Architect's Corner article entitled "Dynamic servlet to JSP� page navigation". The class diagram has a particular inheritance structure whereby Class "GenericControllerImpl" extends interface "GenericController" & Class "WorkerBeanImpl" extends interface "WorkerBean" Is the postfix "Impl" a standard way of naming non-abstract subclasses from abstract ones ? What does it stand for as a mnemonic ? Thanks Photek
Pho, 'Impl' stands for 'Implementation' in this context. The concrete subclass implemets the abstract superclass class, hence the name. I don't think it is the generally-accepted standard (correct me if I'm wrong). It might be, however, a personal/company/project standard. Regards, Greg
IMO it would be more correct to say Class GenericControllerImplrealizes interface GenericController. ... and I would say that it sounds a little odd to call the class with the same that the interface, just using the postfix. I suspect that the GenericControllerImpl is not as �Generic� as the interface it implements, and has some distinctive attributes that would help in naming it even if GenericController is the only interface it realizes. What do you think? PS. I think that the standard way of presenting abstract classes is using <<abstract>> (stereotype). There is no abstract class in this example.
[This message has been edited by Michal Harezlak (edited November 06, 2000).]
Joined: Oct 11, 2000
Michal, I do agree that the correct name is 'realization'. I only mentioned 'implementation' to explain this specific situation. They're using 'implements' since they're Java-slated (Javareport I guess, and in Java you actually implement interfaces:
I also think that there is no need to name either interfaces or realizations specially (e.g., 'IController' and 'ControllerImpl', respectively). There are means to show that in the UML itself (stereotypes) and there is no need IMHO to duplicate this information in a naming convention. Regards, Greg
Joined: Jul 06, 2000
Grzegorz: I totally agree with you. I understand that you were just trying to follow author�s intentions not presenting your own views ;-). I just found the naming convention slightly odd.