Recently I came across a moderately large python codebase with lots of MyClassAbstractFactory, MyClassManager, MyClassProxy, MyClassAdapter etc. classes.

While on the one hand those names pointed me to research and learn the corresponding patterns, they were not very descriptive of what the class does.

Also, they seem to fall within the forbidden list of words in programming: variable, process_available_information, data, amount, compute: overly broad names, that don't tell us anything about the function when used by themselves.

So should there be CommunicationManager or rather PortListener? Or maybe I do not understand the problem at all...?


AbstractFactory is indeed a poor choice for a name. There is no way to know what is created by this factory, and when you'll look for an entity which creates Animals, you'll never find the corresponding factory by name.
AnimalAbstractFactory is not a wise choice neither, since in most languages, it would be redundant with the abstract keyword in the signature.

This being said, there are several good reasons, highlighted by the comments, to actually include Abstract in the name: not only there are several contexts where you don't have the full signature, but just the name, but also, keeping AnimalFactory for an interface may be a wise choice (unless, unfortunately, the convention of the language/framework is to prefix interfaces with I).
AnimalCreationUtility would also be a bad choice: if it's a factory, make things easier for people who will read code, and call it a factory.
abstract AnimalFactory is ok. It doesn't have redundancy, and is clear that it is an abstract factory which delegates the creation of animals to its children.


So yes, including the name of the design pattern is a good idea, but it should be only a part of the name, and shouldn't be redundant with the other parts of the signature.
