Hi community, I've just added IoService interfaces that fits into any socket/datagram implementations:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/mina/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/mina/transport/socket/ These interfaces were introduced to provide more socket implementations (e.g. APR and blocking I/O) and to let user switch between the implementations more easily. I hope it makes sense. As you see, they have the same names with the implementation classes in org.apache.mina.transport.socket.nio. Because of possible confusion, I'd like to add 'NIO' prefix to all service implementations (e.g. SocketAcceptor -> NIOSocketAcceptor). What do you think? Do you have any better idea? Possible candidate actions Julien and I thought are (this is a poll): [ ] Add 'NIO' prefix [ ] Add 'Default' prefix, move them up to org.apache.mina.transport.socket and remove the nio and the bio (unlikely to be implemented?) package. [ ] Why did you introduce these interfaces!? Roll back! :( [ ] ________________ (write here) Cheers, Trustin PS: I will fire a vote about the consistent naming style in a separate thread, so please don't say 'Nio' is better. ;) -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
