+1 Let's get it out in 2.0. Willem
James Strachan wrote: > 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 :) >
