=== on 10 Oct 2014, 15:35:53 Freddy Mallet wrote:
This one will be hard to be implemented as we need to check the whole portfolio of projects. Moreover I would extend it to abstract classes.

=== on 10 Oct 2014, 17:32:05 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~nicolas.peru] and [~freddy.mallet] the rule submitter believes that having the implementation named "*Impl" is/should be a key component in this rule. Since neither of us is convincing the other, would you review the reasoning and give me an opinion?


https://twitter.com/FrVaBe/status/520503720636084224

=== on 24 Nov 2014, 13:04:32 Nicolas Peru wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2]I am not really convinced by this one. We actually expose interfaces for our api to abstract away implementation and rename classes as we wish. Moreover basing a rule on a naming convention is not something I would go for. 

Another question would be : what about marker interfaces ? and as Freddy pointed it out : what about usage by other projects ?

I would go -1 on this one.

=== on 24 Nov 2014, 13:40:27 Ann Campbell wrote:
At this point, I don't think anyone, even the original submitter, is happy with this rule, so I'm going to close it.

