[Red5] Refactoring : Service interfaces
mrchrisallen at gmail.com
Mon Oct 3 05:26:33 PDT 2005
Luke, This all makes sense to me.
On 3 Oct 2005 03:42:35 -0000, grant at bluetube.com <grant at bluetube.com> wrote:
> Personally I'm not a big fan of the I infront of an interface but thats a personal preference rather than a technical one, as far as just extracting them later I think thats key as our interface right now will be quite "specific" and later may become more abstract as we realize more of the design. I typically produce interfaces towards the last 1/4 of a project..
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Luke Hubbard (luke at codegent.com) king.selassie at gmail.com
> To: red5 at osflash.org
> Sent: 10/2/05 11:33 PM
> Subject: [Red5] Refactoring : Service interfaces
> > Hi Guys,
> > Just wanted to make a quick note about interfaces. Its normal and good
> > practice to have interfaces for services exposed by Spring. A lot of the
> > code I have commited doesnt have them yet but this is just because at this
> > stage I am expecting things to change. I find it easier to just update the
> > class, without having to worry abou the changing the interface too. The
> > interfaces we provide will form out public api. Once think services are more
> > stable we can extract a public interface naming it with an "I" at the
> > begining as Domonick has started doing. eg SessionHandler would have
> > ISessionHandler. Public interfaces should have unit tests and be well
> > documented.
> > What do people think?
> > -- Luke
> > _______________________________________________
> > Red5 mailing list
> > Red5 at osflash.org
> > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
> Red5 mailing list
> Red5 at osflash.org
More information about the Red5