Deprecating ChannelPipelineCoverage?

[Mike McGrady]

The multiplicity is with the channel pipeline rather than the  
pipeline, so that would be ChannelPipelineMultiplicity.  Essentially  
you are substituting multiplicity for coverage.  I think either would  
be fine but one is not better than the other.

Mike


On Nov 8, 2009, at 5:34 PM, benshu wrote:

>
>> Good point.  Then, do you have some suggestion for a better name than
>> ChannelPipelineCoverage, or do you think it's just fine?  I think
>> there might be a better name that makes it easier to understand.
>
> How about @ChannelMultiplicity(Multiplicity.ONE) and
> @ChannelMultiplicity(Multiplicity.MANY) respectively.
>
> With kind regards
> Ben Schulz
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Deprecating-ChannelPipelineCoverage-tp3969888p3970663.html
> Sent from the Netty Developer Group mailing list archive at  
> Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> netty-dev mailing list
> netty-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-dev

Mike McGrady
Principal Investigator AF081-028 AFRL SBIR
Senior Engineer
Topia Technology, Inc.
1.253.720.3365
mmcgrady at topiatechnology.com