No one likes IoBuffer eh.. Honestly it seems like the best name to me. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeroen Brattinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: dev@mina.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:04:14 PM Subject: Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
What about IoDataBuffer? Jeroen Brattinga Richard Wallace wrote: > +0 DataBuffer > > I also agree with the argument against using "ByteBuffer" in the name, > unless we actually change it to subclass the Java ByteBuffer. My vote > is slightly in favor of DataBuffer, but it still doesn't sound/feel > quite right to me. But I can't think of anything else at the moment > and I think it's the best of what's been suggested so far. > > Rich > > Rodrigo Madera wrote: >> I agree with the comment of not suffixing with ByteBuffer since it >> incorrectly suggests that it's a subclass of the Java standard. >> >> I don't think just "Buffer" would be good because of the single word, >> which >> would normally describe an interface. >> >> So that's why I voted to something simple as xxxBuffer, which in this >> case >> was DataBuffer as Trustin suggested. >> >> Regards, >> Rodrigo >> >> On 9/18/07, Niklas Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Trustin Lee wrote: >>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> It is often confusing to discriminate MINA ByteBuffer and NIO >>>> ByteBuffer. Do we need renaming? I didn't have much difficulties >>>> actually because most Java code doesn't use both types at the same >>>> time. >>>> >>>> There was an opinion about renaming it to MinaByteBuffer, but I don't >>>> think it's the best name available for us. I think DataBuffer, >>>> ExtendedByteBuffer, ExtendedBuffer or just Buffer might also be a >>>> candidate. There's Buffer in NIO, too, but nobody uses that class >>>> directly. >>>> >>>> I'd like to find the best name; short and not confusing one. Please >>>> don't hesitate to respond to this message with your idea so we can >>>> find out the best alternative. >>>> >>>> Trustin >>>> >>>> >>> Since MINA's ByteBuffer doesn't inherit from java.nio.ByteBuffer I >>> think >>> the names ending in ByteBuffer (especially ExtendedByteBuffer) could be >>> confusing. I think I prefer just calling it Buffer. >>> >>> Or maybe OctetBuffer? According to Wikipedia >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octet_%28computing%29): >>> >>> "Octet, with the only exception noted below, always refers to an entity >>> having exactly eight bits. As such, it is often used where the term >>> byte >>> might be ambiguous. For that reason, computer networking standards >>> almost exclusively use octet." >>> >>> Also >>> >>> "In France, French Canada and Romania, the word octet usually means >>> byte" >>> >>> This would make all the French and Romainian MINA users happy! :-) >>> >>> -- >>> Niklas Therning >>> www.spamdrain.net >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
