A quick check of the source suggests that the Easy Format config builder (which is a nice addition) does not use Lomboc. Someone coded up (or had their IDE code up) the setters one-by-one. Makes sense, Lombok isn't for the builder pattern.
Note that, allowing Lomboc in any part of Drill is the same as allowing it everywhere. The old CS thing that the only numbers that matter are 0, 1 and infinity. To do a PR, all tests should pass, which means that the IDE needs to be able to debug any that have problems. If any plugin uses Lomboc, then developers have to wrestle with it. (But, what is a plugin doing with data objects?) So, perhaps remove it entirely for now. It can be added back for extensions when those extensions are separate projects. (Though, adding that dependency on one extension adds it for everyone. Will there be Lomboc version conflicts? Should we wait for class loader isolation before allowing it back?) In general, Drill is so large that it should not take on more dependencies unless they are a huge win. This is a reason to move the obscure plugins out of the core: mucking with distributed systems should also require one to muck with Excel. - Paul On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:59 PM James Turton <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll prepare a PR that unlomboks everything except contrib. Since we're > talking about contrib splitting off into one or many independent code > bases (c.f. install "Drill 2 and plug-in organisation"), working to make > it conform to coding standards that we're selecting for core Drill > probably won't pay. > > On 2022/01/23 01:36, Charles Givre wrote: > > I guess the question is do we de-lombok what has already been done? I > really like the builders for plugin configs, but I'm generally in agreement > that if it is causing problems building, we should ditch it. > > Best, > > -- C > > > > > > > >> On Jan 22, 2022, at 5:02 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> The Lombok story is better in Intellij, possibly because the Lombok devs > >> use IntelliJ like the majority of devs. Once I knew to install the > plugin, > >> things were at least comprehensible. > >> > >> But the problem is that it isn't obvious. As a newcomer, you don't know > >> what you don't know and because Lombok's major effect is code that isn't > >> there, it isn't obvious where to look. > >> > >> The point about it not helping that much due to Drill's design (good > point, > >> paul) is apposite, but I think the naive reader issue is even bigger. > >> > >> Net, as a person who isn't developing anything for Drill just lately, I > >> don't think it's a good idea at all. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 6:37 AM luoc <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I have a story here. In Oct 2021, I upgraded Eclipse to the latest > release > >>> (2021–09) and then found out that the Lombok dependency was added Drill > >>> repository, So I installed Lombok (as a new plugin) from Eclipse > >>> Marketplace as I used to. Finally, restarted the IDE and prepared to > open > >>> the Drill project, but it is crushed cause by the issue #2956 < > >>> https://github.com/projectlombok/lombok/issues/2956>, Lombok was not > >>> available until I looked at a temporary solution.. > >>> > >>> I use both Eclipse and IDEA, but I use Eclipse more often. I have no > >>> objection to the use of Lombok, but suggest the following three points > : > >>> > >>> 1. Could we use Lombok only in `drill-contrib` module? > >>> > >>> 2. Could we agree not to use Lombok in common module? > >>> > >>> 3. It is best to update the dev documentation to describe this results > if > >>> we continue to use Lombok. > >>> > >>> In fact, I have the same idea as Paul, more about balancing choices. > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>>> 2022年1月22日 下午5:34，Paul Rogers <[email protected]> 写道： > >>>> > >>>> Hi All, > >>>> > >>>> I look at any tool as a cost/benefit tradeoff. If Drill were a typical > >>>> business app, with lots of "data objects", then the hassle of Lomboc > >>> might > >>>> be a net win. However, the nature of Drill is that we have very few > data > >>>> objects. We have lots of Protobuf objects, or Jackson-serialized > objects, > >>>> but not too many data objects of the kind used with object-relational > >>>> mappers. > >>>> > >>>> On the other hand, I had to spend an hour or so trying to figure out > why > >>>> things would not build in Eclipse. Then, more time to figure out how > to > >>>> install the half-finished Lomboc plugin for Eclipse and various other > >>>> fiddling. > >>>> > >>>> So, I'd guess, on balance, Lombok has cost, and will continue to cost, > >>> more > >>>> time than it saved avoiding a few getter/setter methods. And, I agree > >>> with > >>>> Ted, Eclipse (and, I assume IntelliJ), is pretty quick at generating > >>> those > >>>> methods. > >>>> > >>>> Since Lomboc has a cost, and is not a huge win, KISS suggests we avoid > >>>> adding extra dependencies unnecessarily. > >>>> > >>>> That's my 2 cents... > >>>> > >>>> - Paul > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 8:51 AM Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> A couple of years ago, I had a dev introduce Lombok into some code > >>> without > >>>>> me knowing. That let me be a classic naive user. > >>>>> > >>>>> The result was total confusion on my part. Sooo much code was being > >>>>> automagically generated that I couldn't figure out the code and > spent a > >>> lot > >>>>> of time chasing my tail and very little time looking at the crux of > the > >>>>> code. > >>>>> > >>>>> My own personal preference is either > >>>>> > >>>>> - use a language like Julia if you want magic. It's fantastic and > all to > >>>>> have amazing stuff and coders expect to see it. > >>>>> > >>>>> - use an IDE to generate the boiler plate and put it into its own > little > >>>>> annex in the code with the interesting bits near the top of classes. > >>> That > >>>>> lets debuggers and IDEs that don't understand Lombok to function > without > >>>>> impairing readability much. Concurrent with that, use discipline to > not > >>> do > >>>>> strange things like changing the expected meaning of the boilerplate. > >>>>> > >>>>> That's my preference, but I wouldn't want to push that preference > very > >>>>> hard. My own prioritization is on readability of the code by > outsiders. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 2:25 AM James Turton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi again Devs > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This one is simple to describe. Lombok entered the Drill code base > >>> this > >>>>>> year, but not everyone feels that Lombok is appropriate for every > code > >>>>>> base. To my, fairly limited, understanding the advantage of Lombok > is > >>>>>> that boilerplate code is reduced while the disadvantage is the > >>>>>> deployment of code generation magic that can have untoward effects > on > >>>>>> build-time tools and IDEs. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So here is a chance to opine on Lombok if you'd like to. My own > >>> opinion > >>>>>> is very near neutral and goes something like "It burned me a bit > once, > >>>>>> but hasn't since, and less boilerplate is nice. I guess it can stay > >>>>>> <shrug>. I hope I don't regret this one day." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> James > >>>>>> > >>> > >
