Mike Heath wrote:
[...]
This topic came up on the IRC channel and David Lloyd (dmlloyd), Tuure
Laurinolli (tazle), and I (mike_heath) were discussing better
alternatives to the current design. The following is a summary of our
conversation.
And while Mike was typing up this excellent summary, the discussion
continued, so here's the next part. :-)
David posted this mockup as a possible future API
http://rafb.net/p/P8GLTg85.html David wanted me to be sure to note that
the class names in the mockup are just for purposes of explanation may
change.
So basically there's been a number of suggestions as to what to name
these things. Here are the two options:
Name from pastebin Option 1 Option 2
--------------------- -------------------- ----------------------
AsyncHttpClient HttpClientFactory HttpClient
HttpRequestor HttpClient HttpConnector
HttpFuture HttpFuture HttpFuture
So everyone liked HttpFuture. HttpRequestor is universally reviled (I
don't like that one either). Mike suggested option 2, Tuure thought of
Option 1. I pointed out that Option 2 might cause problems in that
people may confuse IoConnector with HttpConnector, though they represent
different concepts. Tuure stated that after typing HttpClientFactory a
few times, he started to like Option 2 some more.
Of course nothing is decided until everyone has had a chance to weigh in.
- DML
