+1. I like the idea of API cleanup, which it seems like this does. Greg
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:19 PM, mck <[email protected]> wrote: > Can we remove/rename util packages... > > I'd be more comfortable seeing the Util classes treated as peer classes > residing in the packages where are primarily used (and ofc then be > package-protected if possible). > > I think this comes under a general good practice where package tangles > in project are a lot easier to avoid if packages are named based off > functionality rather than on type. (Functionality is grouped but types > exist throughout). > > So i'm wondering if there isn't objection if it's a good opportunity now > to do it, starting with tiles-request-api. > > For example in tiles-request-api if we move everything in the util > package back to the request package, and also ContextResolver up to the > request package we completely untangle that submodule. > > ~mck > > > -- > "The only thing I know, is that I know nothing." Socrates > > | http://tech.finn.no | http://github.com/finn-no | > > >
