+1
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:48 AM, James Strachan <[email protected]> wrote: > We could always wait until 2.0 is almost ready to rock and roll to > minimise backport pain? > > 2009/2/18 Willem Jiang <[email protected]>: >> +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 :) >>> >> >> > > > > -- > James > ------- > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration > http://fusesource.com/ >
