It seems like there's no objection since the first posting. More than a week have been passed, so I assume there are nobody concerned with the proposed change. :D
Trustin On 9/17/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi community, > > I've just added IoService interfaces that fits into any > socket/datagram implementations: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/mina/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/mina/transport/socket/ > > These interfaces were introduced to provide more socket > implementations (e.g. APR and blocking I/O) and to let user switch > between the implementations more easily. I hope it makes sense. > > As you see, they have the same names with the implementation classes > in org.apache.mina.transport.socket.nio. Because of possible > confusion, I'd like to add 'NIO' prefix to all service implementations > (e.g. SocketAcceptor -> NIOSocketAcceptor). What do you think? Do > you have any better idea? > > Possible candidate actions Julien and I thought are (this is a poll): > > [ ] Add 'NIO' prefix > [ ] Add 'Default' prefix, move them up to > org.apache.mina.transport.socket and remove the nio and the bio > (unlikely to be implemented?) package. > [ ] Why did you introduce these interfaces!? Roll back! :( > [ ] ________________ (write here) > > Cheers, > Trustin > > PS: I will fire a vote about the consistent naming style in a separate > thread, so please don't say 'Nio' is better. ;) > -- > what we call human nature is actually human habit > -- > http://gleamynode.net/ > -- > PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 > -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
