Tango - shallower hierarchy (was: Phango - questions)

[Kris]

"Chad J" <gamerChad at _spamIsBad_gmail.com> wrote ...
[snip]
>> 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)
>>
>
> I always get the feeling when using large libs that every hierarchy is 
> flawed in bad ways.  EVERY hierarchy.
>
> This makes me want to reexamine what I want out of the hierarchy. 
> Typically I want to be able to find some functionality of the library in a 
> quick fashion.
> This leads me to believe that good search functionality in the docs is the 
> key to accomplishing this.  It would be great to have some sort of 
> powerful search engine for the docs.  Something that can see me type 
> "templates" and know that I am really looking for "traits".


Couldn't agree more, Chad

This is partly what led to the Tango API web-page being a flat listing where 
you can immediately start typing to find something (with FF or whatever). 
Between the package names and the module names, you usually hit paydirt very 
quickly: http://dsource.org/projects/tango/docs/current/

We've also been playing around with a flat import hierarchy (as an 
experiment) where all the imports are in one package, but each import 
actually pulls in a few related things. The package name is tentatively 
called tango.group, so for example you might have import tango.group.text, 
or import tango.group.stream, or import tango.group.time.  You get the idea 
I'm sure - tango as a library is hierarchical, but you can always import it 
via a flat namespace too. Just an experiment that's been lingering for a 
while, but driven by what you describe above ... all hierarchies are flawed, 
depending on how you choose to look at them.

- Kris