I tend to agree with Trustin on this one, Maarten
On 6/14/06, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 in >> favor 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 if > so. :) > > 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's > another filter as a constructor parameter. So I think it's fine to > omit > Wrapper 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
