Yeah. HttpRequestProcessor shouldn't be the final name. I just needed
something unique and picked that as the least offensive
temporary-might-accidentally-become-permanent name that ryan and I could
come up with. In addition to that, I think we're going to need to
reintroduce the general Adapter interface (whatever we want to call
it). There are several implementations out there (like the jruby and
jersey bits) and i'm not sure if they implement Adapter directly or use
GrizzlyAdapter. I know GlassFish references com.sun.grizzly.tcp.Adapter
directly and i'm not sure that replacing those references with
HttpRequestProcessor is always the right thing to do.
On 11/12/10 8:50 AM, Oleksiy Stashok wrote:
> Hi,
>
> would like to ask your opinion on better name for GrizzlyAdapter in
> Grizzly 2.0.
> We picked up a name HttpService, which seemed good, but appears it has
> a lot of conflicts, cause HttpService name is used in OSGi and other
> GF components.
>
> For now we renamed it to HttpRequestProcessor, but hope we will be
> able find something better.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks.
>
> WBR,
> Alexey.