On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Jack, Paul wrote: > I'm even okay with the wrapper classes being package-protected > OUTER classes defined in the same source file. Having > package-protected classes still gives us a lot of leeway with > organizing things, as technically users shouldn't be using > package-protected methods and classes.
we could even make them public classes and allow users to extend them on their own (using the XXXUtils.whatever methods as convenience methods) > > After a little thought, I think I favour adding Utils to all > > of the above. > > Results in no clashes with Java, and just involves adding methods to > > ListUtils, CollectionUtils and MapUtils. > > One other consideration is that ListUtils is deprecated. We > could always un-deprecate it, of course. I'd want to manually > deprecate each method currently in the class though, but that > doesn't seem like a big deal. nope... not a big deal. Since you said it though, why would you still want to deprecate each method? It seems like "summing" two lists and returning a List might still be beneficial rather than using a collection method that returns a Collection. A user shouldn't assume that the returned collection from CollectionUtils is really a List (even if it is at the moment). Maybe Rodney (if he's even listening and remembers) can provide some insight as to why he deprecated it a year ago. > But otherwise, I think having: > > BagUtils > CollectionUtils > ComparatorUtils > IteratorUtils > ListUtils > MapUtils > PredicateUtils > SetUtils > TransformerUtils > TreeUtils > > is all good. I'd like FactoryUtils to be SimpleObjectFactoryUtils, > which is a very long name but more consistent with the others. FactoryUtils could still be used. Then, if later we add another type of factory (I have *no* idea what though), we can keep all the factory methods in FactoryUtils. And actually, we could rename SimpleObjectFactory to just plain Factory. I tried looking back at the discussion to understand why it wasn't. Here's a review. Originally, "Factory" was proposed and had some support: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=7348 Then, Stephen brought up an interesting point about how different people define a factory in different ways (e.g. by having the factory method take a parameter), but this still used the "Factory" name: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=7366 It wasn't until Aaron Bates, the person that proposed the Lazy collections in the first place, put his code up on the web: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=338897 And, of course, "She/He who does the work, wins" But that doesn't mean we can't do more work and rename it. I didn't really see any arguments against naming it "Factory" rather than "SimpleObjectFactory" > > On method names, I agree with your implicit use of yyyedXxx, eg. > > filteredMap or predicatedSet > > This is all sounding dangerously close to consensus! I think this > is probably the only civilized conversation on naming conventions > I've ever had... :) :) regards, michael -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
