On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Stephen Colebourne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 17/12/2002 > 08:17:13 PM: > > > I propose creating a 'util' package within [lang]. This would contain > > BitField > > StopWatch > > XmlUtils ?? (maybe just the escaping) > Works for me. +1. Escaping and removeXml I would keep. They're both simple and useful [and used in String taglib]. > > I propose creating an 'identifier' package within [lang]. This would > contain > > /identifier > Yip, lang is as good as any other place for it. > > > I propose deleting > > Interpolator > Does anyone currently use it? No. It also came out of StringUtils. > > > I propose adding to [lang] > > WordWrapUtils > Works for me. > > > I propose clarifying the scope of [lang] to cover utilities and helpers > in > > both java.lang and java.util. > How will that affect collections? Yeah, this scope is too broad. I think we want to avoid using java.util here as java.util is patently wrong. We should just be vague with something like standard JDK utilities or something :) Hen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
