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]> 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 class from another > > package. > > > > For some reasons, I felt quite confused when using MINA ByteBuffer, > > because the name is the same than the basic NIO ByteBuffer. I would > > not have picked this name... MINAByteBuffer would have been a good > > exemple of what I would like to have. > > > > I know that some people think we should _always_ use the full package > > name instead of simply the class name in the code > > (org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer instead of simply ByteBuffer), but > > I do think that those kind of peope should be buried under their own > > code :) (Don't laugh, I have already met such a strange person... Was > > in in Waco, Tx ? Don't remember ;) > > > > E. > > > > [X]: Retain them. > > IoSession and IoFuture are fines. > > BTW I agree with Emmanuel about ByteBuffer, we need to find a more > unique name. > > Julien > > P.S. : I knew one who hated pakages and forbid me to use class names > longer than 8 chars.. >
