Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2802

Re: java.lang vs java.util

Show all headers | View raw

On 11-04-02 10:12 AM, David Lamb wrote:
> On 02/04/2011 8:50 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> java.util from Day One has simply been a grab-bag package. The name
>> "util" already says "we didn't know where else to put it". It's a bad
>> example and a bad naming choice which has led to innumerable copycats in
>> the form of not only third-party org.foo.util packages,...
> 
> I'm in the position of developing some of my own personal software,
> which I'm organising under ca.queensu.cs.dal (the first 3 of which might
> need to change depending on what my employer decides to say about it).
> So I have ...dal.edfmwk for one particular set of tightly correlated
> libraries, and ..dal.txt for a demo text editor, but I'd rather have
> ...dal.something.specialized for all the various "grab bag" classes
> rather than having a dozen ...dal.specialized direct descendants.  Right
> now "something" is util, and the only other thing I can think of to
> replace it is equally generic: "lib".
> 
> Do you have any suggestions?

Let's make sure it's not really a package consisting entirely of utility
classes, in which case calling the package "util" is sensible.
Rare...but sensible. A utility class (which one could justify calling
SomethingUtil[s]) generally has a bunch of static/class methods that do
common tasks applicable to (or useful for) a wide variety of objects.

You may genuinely have some classes in there that _are_ utility classes:
if so, separating _those_ out into a "util" package is OK. Other people
may use the name nonsensically, but you'll have it right.

If it's a package containing a variety of non-utility classes that are
simply difficult to classify at the moment, let's agree to agree that
calling the enclosing package "util" is confusing and incorrect, since
it implies that the classes _are_ utility classes. If it's in this state
- a miscellany of classes - I'd be inclined to leave it as

...dal.specialized

which you've noted you don't like (I believe we're assuming that
"specialized" is actually a class name). I don't think there's anything
inherently wrong with that; it actually expresses the inability to group
them further correctly.

AHS

-- 
That's not the recollection that I recall...All this information is
certainly in the hands of the auditor and we certainly await his report
to indicate what he deems has occurred.
-- Halifax, Nova Scotia mayor Peter Kelly, who is currently deeply in
the shit

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-02 17:11 +1300
  Re: java.lang vs java.util Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-01 21:23 -0700
    Re: java.lang vs java.util Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-02 01:52 -0400
      Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-02 09:50 -0300
        Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-02 09:12 -0400
          Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-03 12:37 +1200
            Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-03 08:05 -0400
          Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-03 09:33 -0300
        Re: java.lang vs java.util "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-02 07:57 -0700
          Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-03 12:38 +1200
  Re: java.lang vs java.util Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-04-01 23:43 -0700
    Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-02 19:52 +1300
      Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-03 08:05 -0400
        Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 10:11 +1200
          Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-03 19:25 -0300
            Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 12:49 +1200
              Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-03 22:50 -0300
                Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 16:05 +1200
                Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-04 07:06 -0300
                Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 23:10 +1200
                Re: java.lang vs java.util Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2011-04-04 06:20 -0500
                Re: java.lang vs java.util rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2011-04-04 15:22 +0100
                Re: java.lang vs java.util Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-04 05:58 -0700
                Re: java.lang vs java.util Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-06 15:34 -0400
                Re: java.lang vs java.util rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2011-04-07 10:22 +0100
                Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-04 18:41 -0400
                Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-04 07:04 -0300
                Re: java.lang vs java.util Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-04-04 07:58 -0400
                Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-04 18:46 -0400
  Re: java.lang vs java.util Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-04-02 16:22 -0400

csiph-web