+1 On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>wrote:
> +1 > > I think the merges back to the camel-1.x are a nuisance we can live with > and will almost disappear after the fist hump. > > Hadrian > > > On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:37 AM, James Strachan wrote: > > 2009/2/18 Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> 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/ >> > > -- Cheers, Jon http://janstey.blogspot.com/
