Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Nicolas Vazquez]

I think a PR with a single commit and a large number of files will be ok, if we 
make sure each usage of CS StringUtils functions is replaced by the Apache ones 
and their code removed from CS StringUtils. I also think that another PR could 
be created to move those functions mentioned by Rafael which should not be on 
StringUtils to new util classes and finally remove CS StringUtils from the 
codebase.


From: Rafael Weingärtner <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 6:59:01 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Which StringUtils to use?

Well, there is always other approaches...If we did not use those static
loggers, this number could be greatly reduced. Most of those objects are
singletons and we could use a protected attribute in the first element of
the hierarchy.

I do not mind a PR with this number of files changes as long as you stick
to a single change, what I mind is the combination of high number of files
and commits.Then, at least for me, it becomes pretty hard to track down
things.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> if we don't use a wrapper we get PRs like
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2276 in the future, trying to
> update logging touches 1710 files. I think we should go for the wrapper
> model on these kind of utilities.
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wrapping would still hold code on our side. We have to get rid of code…
> >
> > If we want to start removing CloudStack’s StringUtils in favor of
> > StringUtils from Apache, we could start creating PRs by components (java
> > project in Eclipse). That is manageable to do and to review. There are
> > about 119 classes that use CloudStack’s StringUtils.
> >
> >
> > We will not be able to remove CloudStack's StringUtils though. There are
> > very specific things there such as "applyPagination" that should not even
> > be there... I guess the programmer was running out of places to write
> code
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > All, I am having second thoughts. I think we should maintain a wrapper
> > for
> > > string utils and pass through as much as possible to commons string
> > utils.
> > > A similar thing is applicable to logging. It was started at one time
> and
> > a
> > > second attempt was started to use slf4j.
> > > I think we should encapsulate these kind of utilities to facilitate
> > > migration.
> > > There is also json and xml formatting and maybe handling sockets and
> (big
> > > one) data access objects :/
> > >
> > > @Ron, all string utils are static methods.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Ron Wheeler
> > <rwheeler@artifact-software.
> > > com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 po

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Rafael Weingärtner]

Well, there is always other approaches...If we did not use those static
loggers, this number could be greatly reduced. Most of those objects are
singletons and we could use a protected attribute in the first element of
the hierarchy.

I do not mind a PR with this number of files changes as long as you stick
to a single change, what I mind is the combination of high number of files
and commits.Then, at least for me, it becomes pretty hard to track down
things.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Daan Hoogland 
wrote:

> if we don't use a wrapper we get PRs like
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2276 in the future, trying to
> update logging touches 1710 files. I think we should go for the wrapper
> model on these kind of utilities.
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wrapping would still hold code on our side. We have to get rid of code…
> >
> > If we want to start removing CloudStack’s StringUtils in favor of
> > StringUtils from Apache, we could start creating PRs by components (java
> > project in Eclipse). That is manageable to do and to review. There are
> > about 119 classes that use CloudStack’s StringUtils.
> >
> >
> > We will not be able to remove CloudStack's StringUtils though. There are
> > very specific things there such as "applyPagination" that should not even
> > be there... I guess the programmer was running out of places to write
> code
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > All, I am having second thoughts. I think we should maintain a wrapper
> > for
> > > string utils and pass through as much as possible to commons string
> > utils.
> > > A similar thing is applicable to logging. It was started at one time
> and
> > a
> > > second attempt was started to use slf4j.
> > > I think we should encapsulate these kind of utilities to facilitate
> > > migration.
> > > There is also json and xml formatting and maybe handling sockets and
> (big
> > > one) data access objects :/
> > >
> > > @Ron, all string utils are static methods.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Ron Wheeler
> >  > > com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > >  > > >>> 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.
> 

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Daan Hoogland]

if we don't use a wrapper we get PRs like
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2276 in the future, trying to
update logging touches 1710 files. I think we should go for the wrapper
model on these kind of utilities.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Rafael Weingärtner <
rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wrapping would still hold code on our side. We have to get rid of code…
>
> If we want to start removing CloudStack’s StringUtils in favor of
> StringUtils from Apache, we could start creating PRs by components (java
> project in Eclipse). That is manageable to do and to review. There are
> about 119 classes that use CloudStack’s StringUtils.
>
>
> We will not be able to remove CloudStack's StringUtils though. There are
> very specific things there such as "applyPagination" that should not even
> be there... I guess the programmer was running out of places to write code
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> wrote:
>
> > All, I am having second thoughts. I think we should maintain a wrapper
> for
> > string utils and pass through as much as possible to commons string
> utils.
> > A similar thing is applicable to logging. It was started at one time and
> a
> > second attempt was started to use slf4j.
> > I think we should encapsulate these kind of utilities to facilitate
> > migration.
> > There is also json and xml formatting and maybe handling sockets and (big
> > one) data access objects :/
> >
> > @Ron, all string utils are static methods.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Ron Wheeler
>  > com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >  > >>> 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
> 

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Rafael Weingärtner]

Wrapping would still hold code on our side. We have to get rid of code…

If we want to start removing CloudStack’s StringUtils in favor of
StringUtils from Apache, we could start creating PRs by components (java
project in Eclipse). That is manageable to do and to review. There are
about 119 classes that use CloudStack’s StringUtils.


We will not be able to remove CloudStack's StringUtils though. There are
very specific things there such as "applyPagination" that should not even
be there... I guess the programmer was running out of places to write code

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Daan Hoogland 
wrote:

> All, I am having second thoughts. I think we should maintain a wrapper for
> string utils and pass through as much as possible to commons string utils.
> A similar thing is applicable to logging. It was started at one time and a
> second attempt was started to use slf4j.
> I think we should encapsulate these kind of utilities to facilitate
> migration.
> There is also json and xml formatting and maybe handling sockets and (big
> one) data access objects :/
>
> @Ron, all string utils are static methods.
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Ron Wheeler  com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>  >>> 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 
> > 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.String
> >> Utils
> >>
> >> They both provide about the same functionality, but which one do
> >> we
> >> prefer?
> >>
> 

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Daan Hoogland]

All, I am having second thoughts. I think we should maintain a wrapper for
string utils and pass through as much as possible to commons string utils.
A similar thing is applicable to logging. It was started at one time and a
second attempt was started to use slf4j.
I think we should encapsulate these kind of utilities to facilitate
migration.
There is also json and xml formatting and maybe handling sockets and (big
one) data access objects :/

@Ron, all string utils are static methods.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Ron Wheeler  wrote:

> 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 >> 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 
> 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 
>>
>> 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.String
>> Utils
>>
>> 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
>
>


-- 

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Ron Wheeler]

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  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 
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 


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 

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

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Daan Hoogland]

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  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  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 
>>> 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 

> 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 
>>
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Daan

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Ron Wheeler]

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 
> 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
> 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
>

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 >

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

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Daan Hoogland]

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  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 
>> 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 
>>>
 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 
>
> 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

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Ron Wheeler]

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  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 

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 


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

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Daan Hoogland]

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  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 
>> 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 
>>>
 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
>
>
>



>>
>>


-- 
Daan

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Wido den Hollander]

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  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 

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

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Rafael Weingärtner]

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.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Wido den Hollander  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 
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Wido den Hollander]

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  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

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Rafael Weingärtner]

+1 to what Daan's said

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Daan Hoogland 
wrote:

> I'd say remove as much functionality as we can from 'our' StringUtils and
> phase them out asap.
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Wido den Hollander 
> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>



-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Re: Which StringUtils to use?

[Daan Hoogland]

I'd say remove as much functionality as we can from 'our' StringUtils and
phase them out asap.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Wido den Hollander  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
>



-- 
Daan

Which StringUtils to use?

[Wido den Hollander]

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