On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:38:56AM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > <rant>To my mind, we overuse String throughout the codebase when we > > > should either be using richer types provided by the Java runtime > > > (e.g. java.net.URI) or defining custom value objects. In addition > > > to better levering the type checking of the compiler and potentially > > > exploiting polymorphism, rich value objects allow business rules to > > > be neatly encapsulated -- DRYing out the code base and allowing them > > > to reliably unit tested.</rant> > > > > +1 to the rant. String is over-(ab)-used. Sometimes even to do XML. > > Happy to help moving all that if there's a plan you guys work out > > Sunday. Please bring it back to the lists. > > > John and Prasanna, > > You are being an architect, excuse my Dutch. Of course you are right, for > CloudStack 5.0. In the meantime I have real users with real customers that > don't care if I use File or my own custom Directory object or > String(Buffer). > > So +1 for your sunday proposal but 'duhuh' for your rant. I still need to > backport my patch to 4.1 and 4.2 of CLoudStack, with or without the > apache.org bit. > > Had to get that of my chest. >
Of course users and operators don't care. I think architecture astronauts know that ;) But to make cloudstack easier to hack for the larger community of java developers it is essential to start thinking about fixing the codebase too. That's not to say this is the utmost important activity right now, but is certainly something the code should evolve into. -- Prasanna., ------------------------ Powered by BigRock.com
