Sure, knock yourself out :)
As a method name, send() was always bit of a misnomer. Depends on the transport implementation whether anything is actually sent in advance of the output stream being flush()ed/close()ed. HTTP would stream data onto the wire as the content is written (assuming chunking is enabled), but AFAIK JMS doesn't write anything until the entire payload has been assembled. Now open() sounds to me like a sort of one-off operation, only required to be called once per Conduit, not once per message. Something like prepare() or getContent() would be other options. But I'm not hung up on it either way. /Eoghan > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 31 March 2007 21:36 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Conduit.send() -> Conduit.open()? > > Would people be OK with renaming Conduit.send() to > Conduit.open()? I think it results in clearer semantics. > We're just opening the connection then and setting an > OutputStream typically. And we certainly aren't sending the > whole message at that point. > > Thoughts? > - Dan > -- > Dan Diephouse > Envoi Solutions > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog >
