+1 IoBuffer
Based on that I agree IoBuffer does make the most sense. I saw this
shortly before my last post and it didn't have enough time to sink in,
but it has grown on me and would fit with the naming scheme much better
than DataBuffer. And if some feel that IoBuffer isn't descriptive
enough we could always make it IoDataBuffer and get the best of both.
Rich
Cameron Taggart 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: [email protected]
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
