Tango - shallower hierarchy (was: Phango - questions)

[Marcin Kuszczak]

darrylb wrote:

>  I still think 'tango.collection' versus 'tango.util.collection' is quite
>  nitpicky.

Well, I was far, far from criticizing anything or/and anyone. I think Tango
is great library, very well organized with great effort put into details to
make library easy to use and very powerfull. And I will probably use it in
future...

I rather wanted to point out what I don't like in it. Of course I can live
with it as it is, but because it is still before v. 1.0 I think there is
sense in expressing my concerns? Maybe you will say that it is just a
matter of my personal taste, but when there is a lot of people who have
same taste isn't it better to make them all happy?

And that was my intent: to hear from others what they would like to change
in Tango packages. I was thinking here more about brainstorm-like
discussion not arguing what is better or worse and why.

My propositions:
1. tango.util.collection --> tango.collection
2. tango.util.time --> tango.time
3. tango.util.Convert --> tango.convert.Convert

Basically I don't understand why e.g. collection is kind of util? For
me "utility" is something more complex, and is similar in meaning to "tool"
(something which is produced using basic components). "Utilities" is also 
used in meaning of "the rest; other things", so IMHO its also not best
place for putting collection, time and conversion packages. All these
packages represents very basic concepts in every programming language, so
they probably deserve its own packages. (I am not native English speaker,
so please forgive me if I misinterpreted something here :-])

Best Regards
Marcin Kuszczak
(aarti_pl - www.zapytajmnie.com)