framework names sounds great but are too generic as package names. Such names are un-cohesive by nature. Because of the abstract naming, they end up being a "kitchen sink". All inconvenient classes are placed in the "util" packages what makes such packages bloated, the classes harder to find and the application harder to maintain.
Instead of naming a package util, name it after it true responsibilities e.g. logging, monitoring etc. It will keep the packages small and the application easier to maintain.
[See also an in-depth discussion in the "Real World Java EE Patterns--Rethinking Best Practices" book (Second Iteration, "Green Book"), page 420 in, chapter "Pragmatic Java EE Architectures"]
NEW MUC Airport Workshop: Migrating Java Client (Swing / Java FX) to Web Standards