[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ecf-dev] Re: Notes on ECF meeting 8/16/05
- From: Boris Bokowski <bokowski@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:38:53 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=E1kkJaSqQ6nwc6tmxCBgGiXCHjuo5SA0FfLhQD+1zIr+3nCvUbq0Orel3B3VWtr7+TsvFrUGHfMaHDhDYhDDpgUh9dCH3RcRT8urOiRtgGuX0UqOzSXTJRJaibOtm2KWR2eRzSYW8oJtxr1f0Kk5ZAk5SXk2xBbMwgxKoAvuXvM=
> Boris questioned the use of joinGroup/leaveGroup rather than
> **After discussing with Boris at call I (Scott) and
> subsequently thinking about the various arguments for/against
> joinGroup/leaveGroup vs. connect/disconnect am inclined to
> *change* joinGroup/leaveGroup to connect/disconnect. What do
> other people think about this? If we make this API change, I
> would like to do it soon, so that we don't have to do it
> again, so please let you opinions be known about this as soon as
For the record, here are my arguments for changing
joinGroup/leaveGroup to connect/disconnect:
1. Under the hood, joinGroup in most cases means to connect to a
server that hosts some kind of networked service.
2. The method joinGroup could be misunderstood as being the API to
start a group chat session. Since one of our use-cases is to be able
to connect to an instant-messaging service, we should try to minimize
the chances of confusion.
3. For an example where the IContainer implements some kind of
FTP-based file transfer, joinGroup just seems to be the wrong name.