Certainly better to find the references and remove them if you can get
that done in a single effort.
Just a technical question: Could one not just add the Warning to the
constructor?
Might have to create a null (log warning only) constructor.
Ron
On 10/01/2018 3:58 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
We can add log messages to each of the methods in StringUtils but I do not
think that is a good way to go. Any method you touch you can reform or
remove anyhow.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com
wrote:
Agreed about deprecation.
A logged WARNing would be detected during testing as well as at run-time.
Ron
On 10/01/2018 3:34 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
Ron, we could but that would only log during compile-time, not on runtime.
I am doing some analysis and commenting in Wido's ticket.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.
com> wrote:
Is it possible to mark it as deprecated and have it log a warning when
used?
Ron
On 10/01/2018 2:26 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
I think we could start with giving it an explicit non standard name like
CloudStackLocalStringUtils or something a little shorter. Making sure
that
we prefer for these types of utils to be imported from other projects.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
On 01/10/2018 01:09 PM, Rafael Weingärtner wrote:
Instead of creating a PR for that, we could do the bit by bit job
(hopefully one day we finish the job).
Every time we see a code using ACS's StringUtils, we check if it can be
replaced by Apache's one.
Yes, but that will slip from peoples attention and we will probably see
cases where people still use the old one by accident.
I've created a issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira
/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10225
I also started on some low hanging fruit as some methods in StringUtils
are not used or are very easy to replace.
Wido
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
On 01/10/2018 12:01 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
I'd say remove as much functionality as we can from 'our' StringUtils
and
phase them out asap.
Yes, but such a PR would be invasive and would be difficult to merge
and
also break a lot of other code.
It's not easy since it will touch a lot, but I mean, a lot of files.
Our StringUtils was a very good solution, but the Apache one is
better I
think.
Wido
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
Hi,
We have com.cloud.utils.StringUtils which has a few nice functions,
but
throughout the code I also see org.apache.commons.lang.StringUtils
They both provide about the same functionality, but which one do we
prefer?
I'd say org.apache.commons.lang.StringUtils as that allows us to
remove
our own StringUtils, but we could also have 'our' StringUtils simply
be a
wrapper around org.apache.commons.lang.StringUtils
Opinions?
Wido
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
--
Daan
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102