Io prefix: [X]: Retain them. Rename ByteBuffer to may be WrapperByteBuffer or ExtendedByteBuffer
Arul Kumaran Senior Java/J2EE developer/designer http://www.lulu.com/java-success -----Original Message----- From: Maarten Bosteels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2007 1:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces? Io prefix: [X]: Retain them. Name for org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer, in order of preference: (1) leave it as it is (2) MinaByteBuffer (99) MINAByteBuffer, why uppercase !? I think nobody pronounces MINA as an acronym, like we do for MDC or SSL Maarten On 9/17/07, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I completely agree that the MINA ByteBuffer should be renamed and we > should > be using "MINA" in alot more of the codebase. > > [X]: Retain them. > > -- > ..Cheers > Mark > > On 9/17/07, Julien Vermillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:13:52 +0200 > > "Emmanuel Lecharny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > [X]: Retain them. > > > > > > For another reason. It's not because MINA is all about IO that those > > > classes should not start or contains 'IO'. It can be very confusing > > > sometime if we have an overlap with another class from another > > > package. > > > > > > For some reasons, I felt quite confused when using MINA ByteBuffer, > > > because the name is the same than the basic NIO ByteBuffer. I would > > > not have picked this name... MINAByteBuffer would have been a good > > > exemple of what I would like to have. > > > > > > I know that some people think we should _always_ use the full package > > > name instead of simply the class name in the code > > > (org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer instead of simply ByteBuffer), but > > > I do think that those kind of peope should be buried under their own > > > code :) (Don't laugh, I have already met such a strange person... Was > > > in in Waco, Tx ? Don't remember ;) > > > > > > E. > > > > > > > [X]: Retain them. > > > > IoSession and IoFuture are fines. > > > > BTW I agree with Emmanuel about ByteBuffer, we need to find a more > > unique name. > > > > Julien > > > > P.S. : I knew one who hated pakages and forbid me to use class names > > longer than 8 chars.. > > > *********************************************************** CAUTION: This email and files included in its transmission are solely intended for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you receive this email in error, please advise us immediately and delete it without copying the contents contained within. Woolworths Limited (including its group of companies) do not accept liability for the views expressed within or the consequences of any computer viruses that may be transmitted with this email. The contents are also subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the written consent of the copyright owner. ***********************************************************
