I think Serializer is appropriate because it implements the org.apache.pivot.serialization.Serializer interface (it doesn't extend java.io.Reader). Serializer doesn't require that both readObject() and writeObject() be implemented.
On Jul 1, 2010, at 8:45 AM, aappddeevv wrote: > I like BXML because it reminds me its XML based. If you want to get rid of > the two-concept you could call it BxmlLoader or BxmlReader. I think > BxmlReader is more java like if I remember correctly and implies streaming > semantics. If someone implements json or groovy reader then the name helps > distinguish it better as well. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Brown [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 8:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: BeanSerializer > > Hi all, > > You may have noticed that I renamed BeanSerializer to BXMLSerializer. It > occurred to me that "BeanSerializer" fairly strongly implies a two-way bean > serialization capability, which is not what BeanSerializer does. > "BXMLSerializer" is clearer: it loads BXML files. It is also closer to > WTKXSerializer, its predecessor - in fact, I found myself accidentally > referring to it as BXMLSerializer more often than not. > > Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this change. > > Thanks, > G >
