I did not count them preciously, just list that I found now, and I am sure there shoud be more. a. o.a.g.kernel.confg.IOUtils b. org.apache.geronimo.deployment.util.DeploymentUtil c. org.apache.geronimo.common.FileUtils d. some stream operations in PluginInstallerGBean.copy, CopyResourceContext.addFile, and etc.
I understand the concern for a module with only 5 or 10 util classes. In the beginning, I wish to put them in the geronimo-common module, but it has a dependency on geronimo-kernel, which I did not like :-) Actually, I even have an idea that, once all the utils are centralized, we could did some optimization for file copying or something else. , 2009/12/30 David Jencks <[email protected]> > How much duplication is there? I think there might be a danger of ending > up with 5 or 10 util-type modules all with one class with 5 methods in them. > IIRC geronimo-common started out with an idea like this. I like the idea > of having a single implementation of commonly used utilities but like even > more centralizing the functionality that uses these utilities. > > thanks > david jencks > > > On Dec 29, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Ivan wrote: > > Hi, >> Some util methods ( such as copy, close stream quietly, and etc) are >> widely used in the Geronimo, the question is that most codes host their own >> implementations, some use a private method, some may create a util class in >> its own package, others may use third-party components, for example >> commons-io. >> Since Geronimo 3.0 is under heavy development now. Shall we take this >> chance to clean up those duplicate codes ? How about creating a >> geronimo-utils module in the framework, the possible classes are FileUtils, >> IOUtils, and etc. About the implmentation, we could just delegate some >> methods to the third-party libraries if possible, for others, we might >> implment them ourselves. >> Any comment ? >> >> -- >> Ivan >> > > -- Ivan
