in-line comment > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Heuer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 18:00 > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue > > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > > The discussion over UUID makes me nervous. > > > > It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff > goes > > into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense. > > > > However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then > > deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of > > whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) > should be > > in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?) > > > > Solutions: > > 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future > > > > 2) Don't release entire util subpackage > > > > 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang > package. > > Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0. > > > > 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang > package. > > Release 2.0 without ids. > > Non-binding vote of course, but I think this is the best way to go. > A package lang.util doesn't make all that much sense, and it'd be nice to > get 2.0 out. > > Michael
Names are important and as far as package names, I've always felt that naming a package "util" was a cop out: When see lang.util I /would like/ to think "Common useful stuff that the rest of lang re-uses". But that does not make much sense, because such code should really be in the root .lang with sub-packages reusing .lang. (Guideline I like: It is ok for sub-packages to import from "above" but not the other way around) +, when I actually look in a lot of .util type of packages, (not a flame, but constructive criticism) like lang.util I feel like "Well, here's a bunch of unrelated stuff (Validate, Ids) that was lumped under the rug over here". So, to make a long story short: +1 on (4). > > > > > IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is > > better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air > - it > > gives us more design flexibility. > > > > Stephen > > (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/ > > > > > > Changes I know of: > > > > > > Some javadoc > > > WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils > > code > > > All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format > > > > > > I'm sure there were other ones though. > > > > > > Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems > with > > > them. > > > > > > Hen > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
