Proper naming to interfaces

[HeartSaVioR]

From #607, I've changed interfaces name but reverted for initiating discussion about it.

MultiKeyBinaryRedisPipeline -> MultiKeyBinaryCommandsPipeline

There're lots of inconsistent interface names because of not having prefix / postfix rules or conventions.

I've mentioned earlier about it by https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jedis_redis/r1axS6Lckfg/npldlkX2-i4J . But it didn't get any opinions, and @marcosnils agrees that we can change improper interface names, so I've posted to github issue again.

So please refer Google Groups link and show your opinions. Thanks!

[nykolaslima]

As a really new contributor, I think it would be nice to refactor the packages. If the project was structured in a more "logic" way, it would be easier to understand.

Having proper packages that represent not only the major domains(redis.clients.jedis, redis.clients.jedis.exception, redis.clients.jedis.util) but also the subdomains(connection, data structure, etc.) makes the understanding easier and it can also help us to define boundaries. For instance, the class X in the connection package can only be used by this package. This helps us because when we change something, we know what's the affected domain. References: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/BoundedContext.html http://martinfowler.com/bliki/DDD_Aggregate.html

[HeartSaVioR]

@nykolaslima I already talked re-structure, about 1 years ago.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jedis_redis/r1axS6Lckfg/Ylur-RRXiQoJ Seems like preparing major release is a chance to go on? :)

[nykolaslima]

Yes! Let's do it for the next 3.0.

[HeartSaVioR]

@nykolaslima We're going to move interfaces to new packages - #1085 . Hope that will be a good starting point of repackaging. Your idea would be greatly appreciated!

@xetorthio @marcosnils @nykolaslima Next movement is renaming interfaces. I think it's time to discuss naming convention for interfaces.