Yes you may be right, leaving the "Helper" on is probably better, although xap.helpers might be better than xap.util. Right now util is a collection of a whole bunch of junk that isn't all that similar. xap.helpers would be pretty straightforward. Right now we just just Array but we need String as well. (I have some code that sticks a toString() onto a string directly that I need to remove) I can also see something like XmlHttpRequestHelper being useful in the future. James Margaris
________________________________ From: Michael Turyn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 9/20/2006 8:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: ArrayHelper and other helpers >If you look at xap.util.ArrayHelper, it al- >ways takes an array as the first argument. This seems natural and simple. I'd propose a further (and particularly uninspired) convention that when a Java method exists, it be used: aString.trim() ---> StringHelper.trim(aString) or aFoo.bar(a_0,...,a_n) ---> FooHelper.bar(aFoo,a_0,...,a_n) >I would like to remove the "Helper" part and just >have the formula where "xap.util.XXXX" is a helper >class if XXXX is a standard JS class. This does not seem natural or simple; to have a class named "xap.foo.String" or "xap.blah.Array" seems like a recipe for future confusion; I think appending a "Helper" isn't so bad and accurately describes the class. >Maybe instead of xap.util this should be under xap.lang or xap.js >or something like that? Well, if we _do_ do it that way, I'd prefer xap.helpers.String (but just look at that name---it looks like it's a string in itself....)
