commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael A. Smith" <mich...@iammichael.org>
Subject Re: Commons Util 1.0 release candidate 1
Date Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:50:03 GMT
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Eric Dobbs wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2002, at 08:22  PM, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> 
> > org.apache.commons.util.io.Urls
> > org.apache.commons.util.lang.Strings
> > org.apache.commons.util.xml.Xmls
> 
> is the .util also necessary for commons conventions
> or would the following work?
> 
> org.apache.commons.io.Urls
> org.apache.commons.lang.Strings
> org.apache.commons.xml.Xmls

As I said, this doesn't follow the convention where the commons component
is in the package (the component name is currently "util").  This can be
ignored, of course, if we decide to move with Scott's suggestion (which I
kind of like):

> Perhaps we should not name something so generic as util in commons
> proper.  Perhaps we should have io, lang, text as Java does?  Anyone?
> 
> Utils could stay in the sandbox as the 'sorting' place?

To me, at least, that implies we'd have an "io" component, a "lang" 
component, etc, where the appropriate utilities would reside.  Things like 
util.CollectionsUtils would move to commons.collections.Collections or 
collections.Utils or something.

After looking at some of the other classes in the util component, I
believe this is a better way to go, especially with collections related
classes.  There's already some duplication between utils and collections
(SequencedHashtable vs. SequencedHashMap, BufferCache vs. LRUMap, and
EnumerationIterator vs. EnumerationIterator).  If "collection" related 
utility classes went into collections rather than util, this may not 
occur.  

regards,
michael


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message