Interface implementation naming

[jbieliauskas]

I don't like it when there's an interface FooInterface and an implementation Foo.

Classes should have names that reflect peculiarities of implementation. Meaning, there are multiple implementations of FooInterface, each different in some way, and we should name those classes accordingly.

[PauliusMacernis]

I would say there is nothing bad if Foo class is the only class that implements FooInterface. This just says what it means - Foo is the reason why this interface is here and Foo is not split in any other form of meaning at the moment (yet). And the existence of an interface just tells that this only class connects to somewhere via DI or similar way.

For example, having an interface BuildingInterface and a class Building looks ok until you do not have the real reason to split the meaning into parts (kinds of buildings), e.g. HospitalBuilding, PoliceBuilding, etc.

[digitronas-user]

Perhaps I didn't articulate myself enough to make a strong argument, but I found an article that does it better: http://verraes.net/2013/09/sensible-interfaces/