No, your code will automatically notice this by reading Google and change itself accordingly =o)
Just kidding. Yes, you will need to update it. Regards, Rodrigo On 9/19/07, mat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do I have to change my current source code using ByteBuffer? > > On 9/19/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I will fire the vote soon. I just can't right now because I'm pretty > > busy preparing for a trip. Please don't stop brain-storming until > > then! :D > > > > Trustin > > > > On 9/19/07, Rodrigo Madera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > what we call human nature is actually human habit > > -- > > http://gleamynode.net/ > > -- > > PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 > > >
