peter ellis wrote: > To be honest the who naming convention here for example.... > > Interface WriteFuture > Interface CloseFuture > > Just seems odd to me why not have then WriteAsync and CloseAsync ???? > I was speaking with one of the C++ developers and showed him the code > of which he explained to me what it must be doing: joining, waiting > etc. but he agreed that the naming convention they (Mina) have used is > a tad well stupid ..."future"!???? WTF > Seems like Sun has a different opinion:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Future.html http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/FutureTask.html ;-) -- Niklas Therning www.spamdrain.net
