I am sorry for sending this message to dev@directory. Please ignore it and reply to the message sent to mina-dev@directory if you're interested.
On 6/3/06, peter royal <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:On Jun 2, 2006, at 1:57 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> * Renamed ReferenceCountingIoFilterWrapper to
Do we not want to call it a *Wrapper or *Decorator to indicate that
it is a filter that will wrap another filter? I've always been in
favor of doing that to make the usage of a class clear from its name...
Did we discussed about this naming scheme before? Please blame my brain if so. :)
I just thought that it is OK to omit the name of the pattern because we have JavaDoc that can explain what it does in one sentence. It is because using the class means that we know what it does. From the readibiliy viewpoint, we can easily guess that it's a wrapper or a decorator because there's another filter as a constructor parameter. So I think it's fine to omit Wrapper or Decorator in class names.
But this is only my opinion. Let's discuss enough to get to the concensus.
Thanks for pointing out,