We could always wait until 2.0 is almost ready to rock and roll to minimise backport pain?
2009/2/18 Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com>: > +1 > Let's get it out in 2.0. > > Willem > > 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/
