Sounds like we need to retain those 'Io's! :)
Thanks everyone!
Cheers,
Trustin
On 9/19/07, Mike Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [x]: Retain them. I use JMS Session and java.util.concurrent.Future
> > everywhere!
>
>
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamyn
[x]: Retain them. I use JMS Session and java.util.concurrent.Future everywhere!
:39 AM
To: dev@mina.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Io prefix:
[X]: Retain them.
Name for org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer, in order of preference:
(1) leave it as it is
(2) MinaByteBuffer
(99) MINAByteBuffer, why uppercase !?
I think nobody
[X]: Retain them. I use JMS Session and java.util.concurrent.Future everywhere!
There are far too many possible conflicts that would just make code a
PITA to write and read otherwise.
Rich
Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi everyone,
Another issue has been arisen. Now some people seems to want to get
Io prefix:
[X]: Retain them.
Name for org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer, in order of preference:
(1) leave it as it is
(2) MinaByteBuffer
(99) MINAByteBuffer, why uppercase !?
I think nobody pronounces MINA as an acronym, like we do for MDC or SSL
Maarten
On 9/17/07, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
#2 MinaByteBuffer
--
..Cheers
Mark
On 9/17/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Io prefix:
> [X]: Retain them.
>
> Name for org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer, in order of preference:
> (1) leave it as it is
> (2) MinaByteBuffer
> (99) MINAByteBuffer, why uppercase !?
> I think nob
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:13:52 +0200
"Emmanuel Lecharny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [X]: Retain them.
>
> For another reason. It's not because MINA is all about IO that those
> classes should not start or contains 'IO'. It can be very confusing
> sometime if we have an overlap with another clas
Remove them all.
Rodrigo
On 9/17/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Io prefix:
> [X]: Retain them.
>
> Name for org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer, in order of preference:
> (1) leave it as it is
> (2) MinaByteBuffer
> (99) MINAByteBuffer, why uppercase !?
> I think nobody pronoun
I completely agree that the MINA ByteBuffer should be renamed and we should
be using "MINA" in alot more of the codebase.
[X]: Retain them.
--
..Cheers
Mark
On 9/17/07, Julien Vermillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:13:52 +0200
> "Emmanuel Lecharny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [X]: Retain them.
For another reason. It's not because MINA is all about IO that those
classes should not start or contains 'IO'. It can be very confusing
sometime if we have an overlap with another class from another
package.
For some reasons, I felt quite confused when using MINA ByteBuffer,
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:01:21 +0900
"Trustin Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Another issue has been arisen. Now some people seems to want to get
> rid of ugly 'Io' prefix from everywhere (e.g. IoSession -> Session,
> IoFuture -> Future!?). Please let us know what do you think
Hi everyone,
Another issue has been arisen. Now some people seems to want to get
rid of ugly 'Io' prefix from everywhere (e.g. IoSession -> Session,
IoFuture -> Future!?). Please let us know what do you think about
this issue. More feed back, better names!
[ ]: Remove them all!
[ ]: Retain the
12 matches
Mail list logo
