I don't mean to be a show stopper but if this turn out into an official poll this will go on and on forever.
The faster the code is updated the better. Also an immediate release afterwards would be a great idea. Yours, Rodrigo On 9/19/07, Michael Kearns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, apologies Trustin - I found the Acronym poll after I posted. > > I don't think you need to rename the class at all, as the packages will > distinguish any ambiguity, and the current name describes exactly what > it is: A buffer of bytes. Prepending Io (IO) is redundant in my eyes, as > you don't use a buffer for anything else other than input or output (not > necessarily comms scope of course). > > The only other name that I could think of was ExpandableByteBuffer as it > does auto-grow if necessary, but even this seems a bit of overkill. > > I tend to look at class names to describe exactly what they are, and for > package names to describe the scope or context. > > If you do change ByteBuffer, will you also be changing AbstractByteBuffer > ? > > HTH, > > Michael. > > Trustin Lee wrote: > > Well... we already made sure most people prefer IoBuffer to IOBuffer. > > This thread is about what word should come before 'Buffer'. > > > > Trustin > > > > On 9/19/07, Michael Kearns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Rob Butler wrote: > >> > >>> No one likes IoBuffer eh.. Honestly it seems like the best name to > me. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Surely, if you're renaming, it would make sense for this choice to be > >> IOBuffer, unless it's pertaining to the moon of Jupiter, the king of > the > >> gods, or one of the other more valid uses ? > >> > >> I'm all for valid naming (personally, I don't have a problem with > >> ByteBuffer - packages are designed for clearing abiguities), but when a > >> word is an Acronym or an Initialism, the letters should always remain > >> capitalised. > >> > >> Michael. > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
