2008/8/27, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi guys, > > while looking at the filters, I found a class name IoFilterAdapter. The > javadoc says that this is an abstract class (but the class is _not_ avstract > ;). > > So I have done some research in the code, and I found that we are using > either AbstractXXX.java classes and XXXAdapter.java classes. I think this > should be normalized in order to always use the same prefix or postfix.
I wouldn't do so. Even from only reading the Javadoc you can see they have very distinct purposes: The *Adapter classes are convenience wrappers meant to be extended by the user if he only wants to use a "subset" of the interfaces they implement. Oh, and i use some of them and could imagine others as well, so it would be an API breakage without a useful reason. The Abstract* classes are typical abstract classes providing common functionality for Mina internal classes that "branch" later on to specific implementations. Applying a different naming scheme for the two purposes is logical and useful - and should be in your "good documentation over everything" spirit. The only thing i would change is to make all the adapter classes abstract since they only implement "NOOP" actions for their purposes and are therefore not very useful to instanciate from. christian
