Closed Tectu closed 3 years ago
Nope, only reason its stop
is because I ported the server side of websocket first. Not sure disconnect
fits great but no objections. close
might work too (but also doesn't fit great). Up to you :p
I'd say lets go with disconnect()
as that tends to pair well with connect()
:p
Naming it close()
would make sense too but then I'd feel the urge to rename connect()
to open()
^^
Currently,
websocket::connection()
has the following (relevant for this discussion) functions:make()
connect()
accept()
stop()
read()
send()
I would like to argue that
stop()
is not really fitting in this scheme. Personally I would go with renaming it todisconnect()
instead.@0x00002a Any objections?