Yes and no. I'm in favour with it as a general idea, though it seems a bigger step than just moving Utils into main cvs and cleaning shop. There would still need to be a util package though.
Some of the components in Utils are real java.util style components. On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Scott Sanders wrote: > 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? > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Rall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 7:13 PM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: Dependency question > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On that note, how about a Lang sub-project for > > core-language helpers. > > > Number/Date/String/Url/File helpers etc. > > > > This is basically what I see Util as, a little bit of > > java.lang, java.util, and perhaps java.text. > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For > > additional commands, > > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
