On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:49 PM, James Strachan <james.strac...@gmail.com> wrote: > One naming convention I really like from the Google Collections > library is using the plural name of a type/interface/base class as the > helper class for static helper methods. > > So we could rename things like ExchangeHelper to Exchanges, > CamelContextHelper to CamelContexts. Much neater IMHO. > > These helper classes are all internal mostly for Camel implementation > details; so wondering if it'd make sense to refactor them for 2.0? > Thoughts? +1
Like java.util.Collections or java.util.Arrays :) What about those util classes? ResolverUtil (I dislike this name, as its not a light weight util class) And if we had a StringUtil that many framework have, should it be Strings And ObjectHelper should be Objects? A bit close to Object/String maybe hard to spot. > > -- > James > ------- > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration > http://fusesource.com/ > -- Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
