I do understand that a facade adds great value in many situations. However, I am afraid that this could escalate up to a point of us maintaining multiple facades of well-known libraries that in the end already offer us what we need. Such libraries tend to be stable; as an example, lang3 was launched in 2011 and has been rock solid since then. If we get into upgrading, at least in the "apache.commons.lang3" example, wpiçd be a "find and replace" operation [see: https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-lang/article3_0.html].
I am inclined into adopting "apache.commons.lang3" and then upgrading all occurrences of "apache.commons.lang" (as mentioned, "find and replace" operation). But I would be OK in moving into a facade. My main concern/goal is to adopt a pattern ASAP, and I would be +1 both ways as long as we ensure a standard in the current and future codebase. Em qua., 8 de set. de 2021 às 12:21, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> escreveu: > Daniel et al, > I've no preference and don't mind multiple dependencies when they supply > overlapping features. I do want to keep 3rd party libraries in facade > projects at all times. It keeps maintenance surface small and it is easier > to see conflicts happening (a good reason to reduce dependencies btw, me > contradicting me). > Both your and Rohit's points make sense to me. > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 2:36 PM Nicolas Vazquez < > nicolas.vazq...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > I don't have a preference either, but the work you are proposing on your > > PR makes sense to me. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Nicolas Vazquez > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:05 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [Discussion] String libs > > > > I don't have any specific inclination, I would use whatever becomes a > > standard. > > > > However, I prefer the readability of a utility method that is readable > and > > easy to understand such as isNullOrEmpty (which suggests it's doing a > null > > check) versus isEmpty. > > > > I suppose a refactoring exercise can be done by picking whatever > favourite > > dependency community consensus is built for (if at all) and then write a > > utility method in something like StringsUtil in cloud-utils and use it > > throughout the codebase so in future if we want to move to something > else - > > all you do is replace your favourite dependency with something new only > in > > StringsUtils of cloud-utils. > > > > ... and update the cloudstack-checkstyle to enforce the new agreed upon > > rule and also update - > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Coding+conventions > > > > > > Regards. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Daniel Augusto Veronezi Salvador <gutoveron...@apache.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 04:37 > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Subject: [Discussion] String libs > > > > Hi all, > > > > Currently, the main String libs we are using are "commons.lang" and > > "commons.lang3" (either directly or by our facade, "com.cloud.utils"). We > > have a current discussion about using them directly or via a facade (such > > as "com.cloud.utils"); however, a third implementation has been added > > (google.common.base), which adds more to the discussion. "commons.lang" > > already implement all we need; therefore, adding a third one does not > seem > > to add/improve/help with anything, but adding more moving parts and > > libraries that we need to watch out for (managing versions, checking for > > security issues, and so on). > > > > I created a PR (https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5386) to > > replace "google.common.base" with "commons.lang3". However, and as Daan > > suggested too, I'd like to go forward and revisit this discussion to > > standardize our code. To guide it, I'd like to start with what I think is > > the main topic: > > > > - Should we use a facade to "commons.lang"? Which are the pros and cons, > > according to your perspective? > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Daan >
