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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
