Yes, apologies Trustin - I found the Acronym poll after I posted.
I don't think you need to rename the class at all, as the packages will
distinguish any ambiguity, and the current name describes exactly what
it is: A buffer of bytes. Prepending Io (IO) is redundant in my eyes, as
you don't use a buffer for anything else other than input or output (not
necessarily comms scope of course).
The only other name that I could think of was ExpandableByteBuffer as it
does auto-grow if necessary, but even this seems a bit of overkill.
I tend to look at class names to describe exactly what they are, and for
package names to describe the scope or context.
If you do change ByteBuffer, will you also be changing AbstractByteBuffer ?
HTH,
Michael.
Trustin Lee wrote:
Well... we already made sure most people prefer IoBuffer to IOBuffer.
This thread is about what word should come before 'Buffer'.
Trustin
On 9/19/07, Michael Kearns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rob Butler wrote:
No one likes IoBuffer eh.. Honestly it seems like the best name to me.
Surely, if you're renaming, it would make sense for this choice to be
IOBuffer, unless it's pertaining to the moon of Jupiter, the king of the
gods, or one of the other more valid uses ?
I'm all for valid naming (personally, I don't have a problem with
ByteBuffer - packages are designed for clearing abiguities), but when a
word is an Acronym or an Initialism, the letters should always remain
capitalised.
Michael.
