Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
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.
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
s/but if this turn out/but if this doesn't turn out/ 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.
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
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.
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
+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: dev@mina.apache.org 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
mat wrote: Do I have to change my current source code using ByteBuffer? This name change will only affect MINA 2.0 (MINA trunk in subversion). So you would have to change your code if you move to MINA 2.0. The MINA 1.x APIs won't change. -Mike
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
MinaByteBuffer would fit me. I don't like OctetBuffer too much, even if I'm french. What if M$ sudddenly decide that an Octet is 9 bits (8 bits for the data, plus 1 bit as a M$ tax to pay M$ fin to the EU ?:) 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 -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
LOL! I have to agree on DataBuffer, it sounds nice. OctetBuffer sounds a little too farfetched, IMO. Jeroen Brattinga Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: MinaByteBuffer would fit me. I don't like OctetBuffer too much, even if I'm french. What if M$ sudddenly decide that an Octet is 9 bits (8 bits for the data, plus 1 bit as a M$ tax to pay M$ fin to the EU ?:) 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
I guess M$ would have to redefine the Greek (or is it Latin?) language then as well. :-) Seriously, I think DataBuffer or Buffer would be ok. On second thought MinaByteBuffer is ok too. I don't think it will be very confusing. It will certainly be less confusing than what we have at the moment. /Niklas Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: MinaByteBuffer would fit me. I don't like OctetBuffer too much, even if I'm french. What if M$ sudddenly decide that an Octet is 9 bits (8 bits for the data, plus 1 bit as a M$ tax to pay M$ fin to the EU ?:) 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
[x] DataBuffer Maarten On 9/18/07, Niklas Therning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess M$ would have to redefine the Greek (or is it Latin?) language then as well. :-) Seriously, I think DataBuffer or Buffer would be ok. On second thought MinaByteBuffer is ok too. I don't think it will be very confusing. It will certainly be less confusing than what we have at the moment. /Niklas Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: MinaByteBuffer would fit me. I don't like OctetBuffer too much, even if I'm french. What if M$ sudddenly decide that an Octet is 9 bits (8 bits for the data, plus 1 bit as a M$ tax to pay M$ fin to the EU ?:) 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
When you have protocol _data_ it makes sense that the object is called DataBuffer. ;-) On 9/18/07, Jeroen Brattinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL! I have to agree on DataBuffer, it sounds nice. OctetBuffer sounds a little too farfetched, IMO. Jeroen Brattinga Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: MinaByteBuffer would fit me. I don't like OctetBuffer too much, even if I'm french. What if M$ sudddenly decide that an Octet is 9 bits (8 bits for the data, plus 1 bit as a M$ tax to pay M$ fin to the EU ?:) 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
MINAByteBuffer, because it's MINA, not Mina and I like obvious names :) Julien On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:14:56 +0900 Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
I would choose MINADataBuffer as there is a java.awt.image.DataBuffer. Regards Boon Ping. On 9/18/07, Julien Vermillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MINAByteBuffer, because it's MINA, not Mina and I like obvious names :) Julien On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:14:56 +0900 Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
ExtendedByteBuffer, because it provides additional features to the standard ByteBuffer. On 9/18/07, Julien Vermillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MINAByteBuffer, because it's MINA, not Mina and I like obvious names :) Julien On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:14:56 +0900 Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -- Hez
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
MinaByteBuffer is not really making muxch sense here. We move from IoSession to IOSession and choose to use Mina in place of MINA ? Julien On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:56:50 +0200 Emmanuel Lecharny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MinaByteBuffer would fit me. I don't like OctetBuffer too much, even if I'm french. What if M$ sudddenly decide that an Octet is 9 bits (8 bits for the data, plus 1 bit as a M$ tax to pay M$ fin to the EU ?:) 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
For the sake of some kind of consistency, DataBuffer. MINAByteBuffer will break the previous poll (capitalize only first letter). And talking about greeks : Timeo Microsoftaens et dona ferentes ... -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
My vote is for MinaByteBuffer. Name it for what it is. ExtendedByteBuffer is hard to rationalize since the class does not extend a ByteBuffer. WrappedByteBuffer is OK, but we already have a ByteBufferWrapper. This could be confusing. MINADataBuffer would be my second choice. -- ..Cheers Mark On 9/18/07, Emmanuel Lecharny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the sake of some kind of consistency, DataBuffer. MINAByteBuffer will break the previous poll (capitalize only first letter). And talking about greeks : Timeo Microsoftaens et dona ferentes ... -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
I say DataBuffer or MinaByteBuffer On 9/18/07, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
+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
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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
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: dev@mina.apache.org 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
IoBuffer is OK for me, certainly better than MinaByteBuffer Maarten On 9/18/07, Cameron Taggart [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: dev@mina.apache.org 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
Do I need to change my current codec using ByteBuffer? On 9/19/07, Maarten Bosteels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IoBuffer is OK for me, certainly better than MinaByteBuffer Maarten On 9/18/07, Cameron Taggart [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: dev@mina.apache.org 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
RE: New name for ByteBuffer?
IoBuffer seems to be really consistent other stuff and sounds great to me. Arul Kumaran Senior Java/J2EE developer/designer http://www.lulu.com/java-success -Original Message- From: Cameron Taggart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 19 September 2007 6:52 AM To: dev@mina.apache.org Subject: Re: New name for ByteBuffer? 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: dev@mina.apache.org 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 *** CAUTION: This email and files included in its transmission are solely intended for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you receive this email in error, please advise us immediately and delete it without copying the contents contained within. Woolworths Limited (including its group of companies) do not accept liability for the views expressed within or the consequences of any computer viruses that may be transmitted with this email. The contents are also subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the written consent of the copyright owner. ***
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
After reading this thread over and giving it some thought, I like IoBuffer best. It's the most consistent with the rest of the API. DataBuffer would be my second pick. -Mike 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
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
On 9/19/07, Mike Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After reading this thread over and giving it some thought, I like IoBuffer best. It's the most consistent with the rest of the API. DataBuffer would be my second pick. +1. I love IoBuffer, too. Is it time for vote then? It seems like each person his or her preference over other's. Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
New name for ByteBuffer?
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 -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: New name for ByteBuffer?
+1...renaming it would be good. When I explain it...I have to be very careful in saying I mean Mina's ByteBuffer..not a regular ByteBuffer Jeff 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
