-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 4:20 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: [Collections] Naming conventions [was ComparableComparator -
nulls OK]
Hi all,
Seeing as the collections package seems to be growing very
quickly, and some
PM
Subject: RE: [Collections] Naming conventions [was ComparableComparator -
nulls OK]
I think this is definitely a step in the right direction,
but that the ultimate strategy you've outlined is still
a little confusing.
Basically, we currently have two categories of decorator
classes:
1
Hi all,
Seeing as the collections package seems to be growing very quickly, and some
of the original classes were perhaps not named or grouped perfectly, I was
thinking that we might take this opportunity to agree some naming
conventions. I know, yawn, yawn, but anyway...
Here are the existing
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
If we do this right, some of the current top level classes (eg.iterators)
could be deprecated and become merged into a factory style class, to the
benefit of the interface size.
Well thats my input (sorry for the long email!). We could really
