On Wednesday, Dec 4, 2002, at 13:11 US/Pacific, Jason Foster wrote:
<snip/>How about thinking in terms of synchronous and asynchronous I/O? sendPageAndBlock() or sendPageSync() sendPageAsync()
On Wednesday, Dec 4, 2002, at 14:33 US/Pacific, Andy Lewis wrote:
I think the danger is to have the semantics of these functions associated with the way the response page is actually sent over the wire.what about I/O terms? sendPageBlocking sendPageNonBlocking or something akin to these?
To reiterate my option, I think sendPageAndWait and sendPageAndContinue are still the best options. They also provide the maximum compatibility with the old naming, only sendPage dissapears, everything else is the same.
Regards,
Ovidiu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]