Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
On Wednesday, Dec 4, 2002, at 13:11 US/Pacific, Jason Foster wrote:<snip/> How about thinking in terms of synchronous and asynchronous I/O? sendPageAndBlock() or sendPageSync() sendPageAsync()On Wednesday, Dec 4, 2002, at 14:33 US/Pacific, Andy Lewis wrote:what about I/O terms? sendPageBlocking sendPageNonBlocking or something akin to these?
I think the danger is to have the semantics of these functions associated with the way the response page is actually sent over the wire.
To reiterate my option, I think sendPageAndWait and sendPageAndContinue are still the best options. They also provide the maximum compatibility with the old naming, only sendPage dissapears, everything else is the same.
Agree. I think the confusion of "sendPageAndContinue" with continuations came from the fact that the "sendPage" counterpart wasn't semantically precise enough.
Most people seem to agree that "sendPageAndWait" is a good name. My english skills tell me that "continue" is a good word as a complementary to "wait". And since my skills are somewhat limited, it's likely that it most people will have the same understanding as me :)
So, IMO, "sendPageAndWait" and "sendPageAndContinue", are good names, being equally-precise and semantically complementary.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
