You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mina.apache.org by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> on 2007/09/17 17:01:21 UTC
[Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Hi everyone,
Another issue has been arisen. Now some people seems to want to get
rid of ugly 'Io' prefix from everywhere (e.g. IoSession -> Session,
IoFuture -> Future!?). Please let us know what do you think about
this issue. More feed back, better names!
[ ]: Remove them all!
[ ]: Retain them. I use JMS Session and java.util.concurrent.Future everywhere!
[ ]: Remove them for some classes only. (____________ list here)
Thanks,
Trustin
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Posted by "David M. Lloyd" <da...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:01:21 +0900
"Trustin Lee" <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Another issue has been arisen. Now some people seems to want to get
> rid of ugly 'Io' prefix from everywhere (e.g. IoSession -> Session,
> IoFuture -> Future!?). Please let us know what do you think about
> this issue. More feed back, better names!
For what it's worth, JSR 203 (new NIO APIs) has an interface named IoFuture
already. Of course, as you all probably know, Future is already in the
java.util.concurrent package.
- DML
Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Posted by Richard Wallace <rw...@thewallacepack.net>.
[X]: Retain them. I use JMS Session and java.util.concurrent.Future everywhere!
There are far too many possible conflicts that would just make code a
PITA to write and read otherwise.
Rich
Trustin Lee wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Another issue has been arisen. Now some people seems to want to get
> rid of ugly 'Io' prefix from everywhere (e.g. IoSession -> Session,
> IoFuture -> Future!?). Please let us know what do you think about
> this issue. More feed back, better names!
>
> [ ]: Remove them all!
> [ ]: Retain them. I use JMS Session and java.util.concurrent.Future everywhere!
> [ ]: Remove them for some classes only. (____________ list here)
>
> Thanks,
> Trustin
>
Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Posted by Mark <el...@gmail.com>.
#2 MinaByteBuffer
--
..Cheers
Mark
On 9/17/07, Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Io prefix:
> [X]: Retain them.
>
> Name for org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer, in order of preference:
> (1) leave it as it is
> (2) MinaByteBuffer
> (99) MINAByteBuffer, why uppercase !?
> I think nobody pronounces MINA as an acronym, like we do for MDC or SSL
>
> Maarten
>
> On 9/17/07, Mark <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I completely agree that the MINA ByteBuffer should be renamed and we
> > should
> > be using "MINA" in alot more of the codebase.
> >
> > [X]: Retain them.
> >
> > --
> > ..Cheers
> > Mark
> >
> > On 9/17/07, Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:13:52 +0200
> > > "Emmanuel Lecharny" <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > [X]: Retain them.
> > > >
> > > > For another reason. It's not because MINA is all about IO that those
> > > > classes should not start or contains 'IO'. It can be very confusing
> > > > sometime if we have an overlap with another class from another
> > > > package.
> > > >
> > > > For some reasons, I felt quite confused when using MINA ByteBuffer,
> > > > because the name is the same than the basic NIO ByteBuffer. I would
> > > > not have picked this name... MINAByteBuffer would have been a good
> > > > exemple of what I would like to have.
> > > >
> > > > I know that some people think we should _always_ use the full
> package
> > > > name instead of simply the class name in the code
> > > > (org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer instead of simply ByteBuffer),
> but
> > > > I do think that those kind of peope should be buried under their own
> > > > code :) (Don't laugh, I have already met such a strange person...
> Was
> > > > in in Waco, Tx ? Don't remember ;)
> > > >
> > > > E.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [X]: Retain them.
> > >
> > > IoSession and IoFuture are fines.
> > >
> > > BTW I agree with Emmanuel about ByteBuffer, we need to find a more
> > > unique name.
> > >
> > > Julien
> > >
> > > P.S. : I knew one who hated pakages and forbid me to use class names
> > > longer than 8 chars..
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Posted by Rodrigo Madera <ro...@gmail.com>.
Remove them all.
Rodrigo
On 9/17/07, Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Io prefix:
> [X]: Retain them.
>
> Name for org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer, in order of preference:
> (1) leave it as it is
> (2) MinaByteBuffer
> (99) MINAByteBuffer, why uppercase !?
> I think nobody pronounces MINA as an acronym, like we do for MDC or SSL
>
> Maarten
>
> On 9/17/07, Mark <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I completely agree that the MINA ByteBuffer should be renamed and we
> > should
> > be using "MINA" in alot more of the codebase.
> >
> > [X]: Retain them.
> >
> > --
> > ..Cheers
> > Mark
> >
> > On 9/17/07, Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:13:52 +0200
> > > "Emmanuel Lecharny" <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > [X]: Retain them.
> > > >
> > > > For another reason. It's not because MINA is all about IO that those
> > > > classes should not start or contains 'IO'. It can be very confusing
> > > > sometime if we have an overlap with another class from another
> > > > package.
> > > >
> > > > For some reasons, I felt quite confused when using MINA ByteBuffer,
> > > > because the name is the same than the basic NIO ByteBuffer. I would
> > > > not have picked this name... MINAByteBuffer would have been a good
> > > > exemple of what I would like to have.
> > > >
> > > > I know that some people think we should _always_ use the full
> package
> > > > name instead of simply the class name in the code
> > > > (org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer instead of simply ByteBuffer),
> but
> > > > I do think that those kind of peope should be buried under their own
> > > > code :) (Don't laugh, I have already met such a strange person...
> Was
> > > > in in Waco, Tx ? Don't remember ;)
> > > >
> > > > E.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [X]: Retain them.
> > >
> > > IoSession and IoFuture are fines.
> > >
> > > BTW I agree with Emmanuel about ByteBuffer, we need to find a more
> > > unique name.
> > >
> > > Julien
> > >
> > > P.S. : I knew one who hated pakages and forbid me to use class names
> > > longer than 8 chars..
> > >
> >
>
--
If Jack Bauer had been a Spartan, the movie would have been called "1".
Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Posted by Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com>.
Io prefix:
[X]: Retain them.
Name for org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer, in order of preference:
(1) leave it as it is
(2) MinaByteBuffer
(99) MINAByteBuffer, why uppercase !?
I think nobody pronounces MINA as an acronym, like we do for MDC or SSL
Maarten
On 9/17/07, Mark <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I completely agree that the MINA ByteBuffer should be renamed and we
> should
> be using "MINA" in alot more of the codebase.
>
> [X]: Retain them.
>
> --
> ..Cheers
> Mark
>
> On 9/17/07, Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:13:52 +0200
> > "Emmanuel Lecharny" <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > [X]: Retain them.
> > >
> > > For another reason. It's not because MINA is all about IO that those
> > > classes should not start or contains 'IO'. It can be very confusing
> > > sometime if we have an overlap with another class from another
> > > package.
> > >
> > > For some reasons, I felt quite confused when using MINA ByteBuffer,
> > > because the name is the same than the basic NIO ByteBuffer. I would
> > > not have picked this name... MINAByteBuffer would have been a good
> > > exemple of what I would like to have.
> > >
> > > I know that some people think we should _always_ use the full package
> > > name instead of simply the class name in the code
> > > (org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer instead of simply ByteBuffer), but
> > > I do think that those kind of peope should be buried under their own
> > > code :) (Don't laugh, I have already met such a strange person... Was
> > > in in Waco, Tx ? Don't remember ;)
> > >
> > > E.
> > >
> >
> > [X]: Retain them.
> >
> > IoSession and IoFuture are fines.
> >
> > BTW I agree with Emmanuel about ByteBuffer, we need to find a more
> > unique name.
> >
> > Julien
> >
> > P.S. : I knew one who hated pakages and forbid me to use class names
> > longer than 8 chars..
> >
>
Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Posted by Mark <el...@gmail.com>.
I completely agree that the MINA ByteBuffer should be renamed and we should
be using "MINA" in alot more of the codebase.
[X]: Retain them.
--
..Cheers
Mark
On 9/17/07, Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:13:52 +0200
> "Emmanuel Lecharny" <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [X]: Retain them.
> >
> > For another reason. It's not because MINA is all about IO that those
> > classes should not start or contains 'IO'. It can be very confusing
> > sometime if we have an overlap with another class from another
> > package.
> >
> > For some reasons, I felt quite confused when using MINA ByteBuffer,
> > because the name is the same than the basic NIO ByteBuffer. I would
> > not have picked this name... MINAByteBuffer would have been a good
> > exemple of what I would like to have.
> >
> > I know that some people think we should _always_ use the full package
> > name instead of simply the class name in the code
> > (org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer instead of simply ByteBuffer), but
> > I do think that those kind of peope should be buried under their own
> > code :) (Don't laugh, I have already met such a strange person... Was
> > in in Waco, Tx ? Don't remember ;)
> >
> > E.
> >
>
> [X]: Retain them.
>
> IoSession and IoFuture are fines.
>
> BTW I agree with Emmanuel about ByteBuffer, we need to find a more
> unique name.
>
> Julien
>
> P.S. : I knew one who hated pakages and forbid me to use class names
> longer than 8 chars..
>
Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Posted by Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr>.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:13:52 +0200
"Emmanuel Lecharny" <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [X]: Retain them.
>
> For another reason. It's not because MINA is all about IO that those
> classes should not start or contains 'IO'. It can be very confusing
> sometime if we have an overlap with another class from another
> package.
>
> For some reasons, I felt quite confused when using MINA ByteBuffer,
> because the name is the same than the basic NIO ByteBuffer. I would
> not have picked this name... MINAByteBuffer would have been a good
> exemple of what I would like to have.
>
> I know that some people think we should _always_ use the full package
> name instead of simply the class name in the code
> (org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer instead of simply ByteBuffer), but
> I do think that those kind of peope should be buried under their own
> code :) (Don't laugh, I have already met such a strange person... Was
> in in Waco, Tx ? Don't remember ;)
>
> E.
>
[X]: Retain them.
IoSession and IoFuture are fines.
BTW I agree with Emmanuel about ByteBuffer, we need to find a more
unique name.
Julien
P.S. : I knew one who hated pakages and forbid me to use class names
longer than 8 chars..
Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
> [X]: Retain them.
For another reason. It's not because MINA is all about IO that those
classes should not start or contains 'IO'. It can be very confusing
sometime if we have an overlap with another class from another
package.
For some reasons, I felt quite confused when using MINA ByteBuffer,
because the name is the same than the basic NIO ByteBuffer. I would
not have picked this name... MINAByteBuffer would have been a good
exemple of what I would like to have.
I know that some people think we should _always_ use the full package
name instead of simply the class name in the code
(org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer instead of simply ByteBuffer), but
I do think that those kind of peope should be buried under their own
code :) (Don't laugh, I have already met such a strange person... Was
in in Waco, Tx ? Don't remember ;)
E.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
Sounds like we need to retain those 'Io's! :)
Thanks everyone!
Cheers,
Trustin
On 9/19/07, Mike Heath <mh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > [x]: Retain them. I use JMS Session and java.util.concurrent.Future everywhere!
>
>
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [Poll] Should we remove 'Io' from all interfaces?
Posted by Mike Heath <mh...@apache.org>.
> [x]: Retain them. I use JMS Session and java.util.concurrent.Future everywhere!