commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <>
Subject Re: [Collections] Naming conventions
Date Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:02:08 GMT
I thought part of the aim of the Utils was to avoid having top level
classes, even if they are package scoped.

The problem as I see it is that someone new to the package will come along
and see maybe 60+ classes in the collections package. However, over half
could be package scoped with no way to tell. (I reckon most people would
scan the class names first, either as java files or javadoc.) By defining
them as static nested classes (package scoped) we avoid the visibility
issue. Joshua Bloch's book described it as reducing the 'conceptual size' of
the API.


(I've just changed ISP, so I may break the thread with this email, sorry)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael A. Smith" <>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Jack, Paul wrote:
> > > we could even make them public classes and allow users to
> > > extend them on
> > > their own (using the XXXUtils.whatever methods as convenience methods)
> >
> > Well, yes...but we'd be adding like 30 classes to the public API.
> > Maybe have a separate package for decorators?
> seems reasonable...  but I think we should take small steps in terms of
> the public API.  Make the decorators available via the Utils, then if
> users really want them, move the classes out from package private status
> to public in a separate package...
> michael
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message