Hi everyone,

First of all to the people who don’t know me, I’m one of the guys that together with Peter started the Calitko project. Unfortunately there were a lot of things going on with me, so for some time I was unable to actively take part in the project’s development. Actually, I have still a lot going on but I hope, I can manage to find some extra time for Calitko :). Despite all, I kept myself informed with what was going on with the project by reading the posts or discussing it with Peter.

Now sticking to the problem, Peter, I agree with you and Sebastian about the Network being renamed. I think Protocols fits perfect there. I also agree with you about the PacketParser. It is actually ok but the problem I see there is that parsing is ment for reading and I cannot think of an opposite of parsing in that sense. So maybe PacketReader and PacktWriter would be better in there. About the Utils::Encodings - it should be changed for sure. But the name Codes may not be the best for that. Codes is too general and I think it goes a little bit aside from the meaning we imply. So maybe something like Codings would be better what do you think?

Regards Slavcho

…

Peter Dimov wrote:

Hello everybody,

I’d like to change the names of some packets and would like to get some feedback.

Sebastien pointed out previously that Networks::Http does not make much sense since HTTP is an application layer protocol. He is absolutely right of course. Actually all that is implemented in Networks is protocols, so I’d suggest that Networks be renamed to Protocols. Gnutella and Http should be moved under Protocols some time soon.

I was thinking about this PacketParser class (see the post about packet parsing improvements) and a better name would be BinaryReader, I think. The counter piece would be BinaryWriter. I plan to put them in Utils::Encodings, which by the way should probably better be named Utils::Codes because encoding implies only one direction of code conversion and we actually implement both.

Comments?

Peter