+1
I think the merges back to the camel-1.x are a nuisance we can live
with and will almost disappear after the fist hump.
Hadrian
On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:37 AM, James Strachan wrote:
2009/2/18 Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:49 PM, James Strachan
<james.strac...@gmail.com> wrote:
One naming convention I really like from the Google Collections
library is using the plural name of a type/interface/base class as
the
helper class for static helper methods.
So we could rename things like ExchangeHelper to Exchanges,
CamelContextHelper to CamelContexts. Much neater IMHO.
These helper classes are all internal mostly for Camel
implementation
details; so wondering if it'd make sense to refactor them for 2.0?
Thoughts?
+1
Like java.util.Collections or java.util.Arrays :)
What about those util classes?
ResolverUtil (I dislike this name, as its not a light weight util
class)
And if we had a StringUtil that many framework have, should it be
Strings
And ObjectHelper should be Objects?
A bit close to Object/String maybe hard to spot.
Yeah! Whenever working with Objects in Google collections its actually
quite easy to remember after a while. Seems more natural - once you're
over the hump - than using Foo[Helper|Utils|Util|WhateverElse] etc I
often can't remember if its Helper or Util or Utils :)
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/
