> > So the battle has become: > > o.a.c.primitives.boolean > o.a.c.primitives.byte > o.a.c.primitives.short > o.a.c.primitives.int > o.a.c.primitives.long > o.a.c.primitives.float > o.a.c.primitives.double > > vs. > > o.a.c.primitives.collection > o.a.c.primitives.list > o.a.c.primitives.iterator > o.a.c.primitives.map > > > Any other opinions? >
To my knowledge, the type based packaging as presented is not possible. boolean, byte, short, et al are Java keywords and can not be used as parts of a package name. So, if a type based approach is to be employed, convoluted names for primitive types would need to be used instead of their conventional names. With that, I would say, the collection based approach is clearly the better alternative. Brent Worden http://www.brent.worden.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
