On Thu, February 15, 2007 10:54, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> One thing that I'm especially unsatisfied
> with is the naming. There is just way too many "vfs", "daemon" and
> "dbus" all over the place.
Speaking of which:
> GInputStream
> GInputStreamSocket
> GFileInputStream
> GOutputStream
> GFileOutputStream
> GOutputStreamSocket
You probably thought about it already, but why not GSocket{Input|Output)Stream?
In general I think naming works good if the interface is named with the
abstract concept, and the implementation is named:
<Imp><Concept>
For example:
interface: GInputStream:
implementations : GFileInputStream, GSocketInputStream,
GByteArrayInputStream, etc.
Consistency help.
That being said, I think a more "practical" naming would be:
<Concept><Imp>
e.g.
GInputStreamFile, GInputStreamSocket, etc.
that would allow easier completion in IDEs such as Eclipse.
But at the end of the day I would go with Java/.NET naming,
I don't think it's worth going against the grain of what people expect.
--
Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lattica, Inc.
_______________________________________________
gnome-vfs-list mailing list
gnome-vfs-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-vfs-list
