No, in my opinion it's bad just the same. I use adjectives derived from the names of the required methods. The interface tells the class what capabilities it must have. Contract tells word contract only, no ability.
Indeed. It's an odd dissimilarity between C# and Java, that in Java it's the interfaces that are typically/often seen as primary: you have a Car interface and a CarImpl class (or rather, a specific type of car). After that, the user of the Car instance should only care about the instance being a Car, not which specific kind of car, apart from what can be gleaned via the interface's methods.
Have you tried the contract naming? Instead of
Iit would beLoggerContract.No, in my opinion it's bad just the same. I use adjectives derived from the names of the required methods. The interface tells the class what capabilities it must have. Contract tells word contract only, no ability.
Indeed. It's an odd dissimilarity between C# and Java, that in Java it's the interfaces that are typically/often seen as primary: you have a Car interface and a CarImpl class (or rather, a specific type of car). After that, the user of the Car instance should only care about the instance being a Car, not which specific kind of car, apart from what can be gleaned via the interface's methods.
Interface first, implementation last.