Thanks for explaining Daniel. +1 (binding) if the StringsUtils facade (in cloud-api) is used to rely on commons-lang3 and use StringsUtils facade (from cloud-api) throughout the source code.
-0 (binding) if we're only replacing all String operations throughout with commons-lang3 directly but not using the facade as the default. +1 (binding) on points #2 (checkstyle enforcement/checks) and #3 (update wiki/docs on coding conventions). Regards. ________________________________ From: Daniel Augusto Veronezi Salvador <dvsalvador...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 18:25 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Standard string lib Rohit, sure. About the points: 1. The objective of the vote is to see if all are in favor of using "commons.lang3" as the String standard library and for String operations not covered on "commons.lang3", we use our StringUtils (as we discussed in the discussion thread - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r806cd10b3de645c150e5e0e3d845c5a380a700197143f57f0834d758%40%3Cdev.cloudstack.apache.org%3E). Then, if the vote passes, I will create the PR to address this change in the code base by removing unnecessary libraries, and changing the code to use "commons.lang3"'. Te proposal is to use "lang3" as the standard String library; therefore, I will replace every occurrence of others String libraries by "lang3" (and update "lang" to "lang3"). Our (facade) StringUtils will be only to specific methods that "lang3" doesn't cover, like "csvTagsToList", "areTagsEqual" and others. 2. As there are many libraries, what I could do is to add the module "IllegalImport" to the checkstyle and verify the libraries I will remove in the refactor. 3. I will update the code conventions wiki/docs with the outcome of this vote, and then we will be able to use it as a guideline in our reviews. Best regards, Daniel On 14/09/2021 05:35, Rohit Yadav wrote: > Daniel - can you explain what are we exactly voting for? > > I get that your vote thread is primarily about moving to commons-lang3 but it > does not explain the plan and logistics, for example what about: > > * Creating a utility facade under cloud-api and using that throughout > the codebase; or is it find-replace all usage of google's Strings with > common-lang3? > * Introducing specific checks via checkstyle plugin to enforce > developers (https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/main/tools/checkstyle) > * Updating the code conventions wiki/docs > > Regards. > > ________________________________ > From: Pearl d'Silva <pearl.dsi...@shapeblue.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 09:27 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Standard string lib > > +1. Sounds like a good plan. > ________________________________ > From: Gabriel Br?scher <gabrasc...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 9:15 PM > To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Standard string lib > > +1 > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:40 Sadi <s...@scclouds.com.br> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Good idea. >> >> On 13/09/2021 12:02, Daniel Augusto Veronezi Salvador wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> We had a discussion about standardizing the string libs we're using ( >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r806cd10b3de645c150e5e0e3d845c5a380a700197143f57f0834d758%40%3Cdev.cloudstack.apache.org%3E >> ). >>> As I proposed, I'm opening this voting thread to see if all are in favor >> of using "commons.lang3" as the String standard library and for String >> operations not convered on "commons.lang3", we use our StringUtils. Then, >> if the vote passes, I will create the PR to address this change in the code >> base by removing unnecessary libraries, and changing the code to use >> "commons.lang3". >>> [ ] +1 approve >>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Daniel >>> > > > > > >
