2009/2/18 Claus Ibsen <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:49 PM, James Strachan > <[email protected]> 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.
Yeah! Whenever working with Objects in Google collections its actually quite easy to remember after a while. Seems more natural - once you're over the hump - than using Foo[Helper|Utils|Util|WhateverElse] etc I often can't remember if its Helper or Util or Utils :) -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration http://fusesource.com/
