--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So StringUtils would go in: util.lang.StringUtils etc.
> In fact, I don't think anything should be in the util package, merely
> lots
> of subpacakages. There's very little in java.util that can't be
> pushed
> into a collections, date or other subpackage.
>
> This enables the scope of the util package to have a nice planned
> growth. (?)
I fear that generic-utils will grow without clear scope until it is
large and in need of componentizing like avalon, struts, turbine or any
other framework.
The whole idea of commons is that the conceptually well-contained code
in those frameworks should be refactored into well-contained
components.
Since at some level these (and the rest of the JDK) are all "utils,"
why not eliminate the 'util' prefix all together. It only leads to
redundancy.
I suggest packaging the IO-related generic-utils as a commons.io
component, the lang-related utils as a commons.lang component, etc.
Otherwise we have org.apache.commons.util.top-level-jdk-pkg... for
every class. And that is supposed to *scale*?
Chuck
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
