I prefer to move all classes into the helpers directory and get rid of lang. Why ResourceLoaders deserve to be placed in a “lang” package doesn’t make a lot of sense to me - they could just as easily have been placed into a package called util. I just didn’t notice when the lang subproject was created or I would have said something then.
However, I am beginning to think we are spending an inordinate amount of time moving stuff from one package to another and renaming classes and variables. Frequently I find that what one person considers a “better” name is just busy work and doesn’t really improve anything, and sometimes makes things worse (again, I think LoggerProvider is a horrible name). If our variables were all named x, y and z that would be one thing, but IMO changing an abbreviated name to one that is fully spelled out accomplishes nothing. OTOH, I don’t mind refactoring that simplifies long classes or methods as those make the code easier to understand and can reduce the likelihood of bugs. Ralph On May 12, 2014, at 7:56 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > We have the packages: > > - org.apache.logging.log4j.core.helpers > - org.apache.logging.log4j.core.helpers.lang > > We should either: > - Move some classes from org.apache.logging.log4j.core.helpers into > org.apache.logging.log4j.core.helpers.lang, or > - Move all org.apache.logging.log4j.core.helpers.lang classes into > org.apache.logging.log4j.core.helpers > > Thoughts? > > When ready, I'd like to do the moves to make some uncommitted code of mine > easier to migrate. > > Thank you, > Gary > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
