On Jun 4, 2006, at 3:53 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
On 6/3/06, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Jun 2, 2006, at 1:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > * Renamed ReferenceCountingIoFilterWrapper to > ReferenceCountingIoFilter Do we not want to call it a *Wrapper or *Decorator to indicate that it is a filter that will wrap another filter? I've always been infavor of doing that to make the usage of a class clear from its name...Did we discussed about this naming scheme before? Please blame my brain ifso. :)I just thought that it is OK to omit the name of the pattern because we have JavaDoc that can explain what it does in one sentence. It is because using the class means that we know what it does. From the readibiliy viewpoint,we can easily guess that it's a wrapper or a decorator because there'sanother filter as a constructor parameter. So I think it's fine to omitWrapper or Decorator in class names.But this is only my opinion. Let's discuss enough to get to the concensus.
Anyone else have an opinion? (If no-one does, we can leave as-is..) -pete -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://fotap.org/~osi
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
