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..
