Is it bad practice to name classes after the façade pattern?
public class OrderFacade {}
public class InvoiceFacade {}
public class ThingFacade {} ...
These classes do follow the Façade pattern.
-
Are these classes implementing the facade pattern?– IxrecApr 26, 2016 at 18:34
-
In some contexts it can make sense, in others not. Who knows your context if not you?– Doc BrownApr 26, 2016 at 18:46
-
@Ixrec good question. Yes.– Price JonesApr 26, 2016 at 19:04
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
I would name them based on what the facade does for consumers, or what it needs to "look like" to the outside world. The fact that it is a facade is an implementation-detail.
So instead of, say, BillingSystemFacade, I'd present it as a BillingService. Heck, perhaps someday I can get rid of whatever clunky API is behind it, and rewrite it from scratch, but the consumers don't need to know whether it is/isn't a facade, only what it promises to do for them.
-
1Agree. Your consumers don't care whether it's a facade or not. Apr 26, 2016 at 18:58
-
I made an SDK, and some facades class to consume its functionality. For example ‘class ConvertorFacade’, and I provided its singleton instance that named convertor. So, consumer just have to use ‘sdk.convertor.bitmap2jpg’. Jun 10, 2022 at 3:40