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]> wrote: > > 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.. > > >
