IoBuffer is OK for me, certainly better than MinaByteBuffer Maarten
On 9/18/07, Cameron Taggart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I like IoBuffer. > > Look at the documentation... > http://mina.apache.org/documentation.html > > The basic constructs are: > * ByteBuffer > * IoService > * IoHandler > * IoFilter > * IoFuture > > Which one doesn't fit? > > Cameron > > On 9/18/07, Rob Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > >
