On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Eric Uhrhane <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> May I propose FileWriter in place of BlobWriter? ;-) >>>>> You are actually always writing to files, so it would make a lot of sense >>>>> IMO. >>>> >>>> We renamed BlobReader based on the perspective that it took data from >>>> a Blob and read it into memory. Likewise BlobWriter takes data from a >>>> Blob and writes it to a file. I think the symmetry makes sense. >>>> Calling it FileWriter also works, but then you're naming by >>>> destination instead of source, so I don't think it complements >>>> BlobReader as well. >>> >>> I think it makes sense to name writer objects by the destination rather >>> than the source. It's normal to speak of reading from X, and writing to Y. >>> You rarely say you are writing from Y. If you saw a random class called >>> StreamWriter, would you expect it writes *to* a Stream, or *from* a Stream? >>> >>> Put another way, the essence of this class is that it writes something to a >>> file, not that it writes a Blob to some unspecified location. If we wanted >>> to add functionality to write something other than a Blob to a File (such >>> as, say, writing a typed array, or writing a string), then it would >>> plausibly make sense as part of the same interface used for writing a Blob >>> to a file. If we made an API to write a Blob somewhere else (such as to a >>> memory location or somewhere on the network), it really would not make >>> sense as part of the same interface. >>> >>> Thus FileWriter. >>> >>> I also think that the name Blob is pretty unpleasant and I would rather not >>> increase its prominence in the API. >> >> Agreed. On both accounts. I have yet to hear anyone like the name >> 'Blob' for anything. > > I don't see what's wrong with the name Blob; I like it just fine. And > I think it's a bit odd to have a BlobReader but a FileWriter, but if > that's what everybody's happy with, I'm OK with it.
I could be convinced to rename BlobReader to FileReader ;-) / Jonas
