You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com> on 2010/02/20 05:32:14 UTC
Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
In the org.ofbiz.base.util package there are interfaces and classes that don't really belong there - they are data types, not utility classes. It would be nice if we could create a new package to contain basic data types: org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package would contain things like: Appender, DateRange, Factory, Range, ComparableRange, TimeDuration, etc.
The org.ofbiz.base.util package could be (informally) limited to classes that follow the utility class pattern (only static methods, private constructor, etc).
What do you think?
-Adrian
Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Scott Gray wrote:
> On 19/02/2010, at 10:10 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> --- On Fri, 2/19/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com> wrote:
>>> From: Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
>>> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 8:56 PM
>>> Adam Heath wrote:
>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> In the org.ofbiz.base.util package there are
>>> interfaces and classes that don't really belong there - they
>>> are data types, not utility classes. It would be nice if we
>>> could create a new package to contain basic data types:
>>> org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package would contain things
>>> like: Appender, DateRange, Factory, Range, ComparableRange,
>>> TimeDuration, etc.
>>>>> The org.ofbiz.base.util package could be
>>> (informally) limited to classes that follow the utility
>>> class pattern (only static methods, private constructor,
>>> etc).
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>> org.ofbiz.base.lang
>>> Where ever they get moved to, you need to check for classes
>>> that
>>> existed in a previous release, and make certain they still
>>> exist, and
>>> just extend the classes that were copied to the new
>>> location. Then,
>>> add deprecation to the old versions.
>> I probably wouldn't do that. I understand what you're getting at, but it adds unnecessary code and complexity to the project. Anyone wanting to upgrade from a release who used the affected classes could do a simple search and replace on the import statements.
>>
>> Things like this have been moved around before.
>
> I agree with Adam, in an ideal world, one would be able to uplift their hot-deploy components from 9.04 and drop them into 10.x without any issues. We're probably still a long way from that but I don't think we should make things any harder for the user than we need to.
Oh, don't get me started on that.
It's not currently possible to do that, due to the delegator changes
that have occurred. I'd like them to be fixed before a new release is
made.
Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Fri, 2/19/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com> wrote:
> From: Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 9:57 PM
> Adrian Crum wrote:
> > --- On Fri, 2/19/10, Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> >> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package
> org.ofbiz.base.types
> >> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> >> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 9:45 PM
> >> On 19/02/2010, at 10:10 PM, Adrian
> >> Crum wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- On Fri, 2/19/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> From: Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package
> >> org.ofbiz.base.types
> >>>> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> >>>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 8:56 PM
> >>>> Adam Heath wrote:
> >>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>>>> In the org.ofbiz.base.util package
> there
> >> are
> >>>> interfaces and classes that don't really
> belong
> >> there - they
> >>>> are data types, not utility classes. It
> would be
> >> nice if we
> >>>> could create a new package to contain
> basic data
> >> types:
> >>>> org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package
> would
> >> contain things
> >>>> like: Appender, DateRange, Factory,
> Range,
> >> ComparableRange,
> >>>> TimeDuration, etc.
> >>>>>> The org.ofbiz.base.util package
> could be
> >>>> (informally) limited to classes that
> follow the
> >> utility
> >>>> class pattern (only static methods,
> private
> >> constructor,
> >>>> etc).
> >>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>> org.ofbiz.base.lang
> >>>> Where ever they get moved to, you need to
> check
> >> for classes
> >>>> that
> >>>> existed in a previous release, and make
> certain
> >> they still
> >>>> exist, and
> >>>> just extend the classes that were copied
> to the
> >> new
> >>>> location. Then,
> >>>> add deprecation to the old versions.
> >>> I probably wouldn't do that. I understand what
> you're
> >> getting at, but it adds unnecessary code and
> complexity to
> >> the project. Anyone wanting to upgrade from a
> release who
> >> used the affected classes could do a simple search
> and
> >> replace on the import statements.
> >>> Things like this have been moved around
> before.
> >> I agree with Adam, in an ideal world, one would be
> able to
> >> uplift their hot-deploy components from 9.04 and
> drop them
> >> into 10.x without any issues. We're probably
> still a
> >> long way from that but I don't think we should
> make things
> >> any harder for the user than we need to.
> >
> > So, where does that process end? Should hot-deploy
> components from 10.x drop into 11.x without any issues? That
> would require maintaining code from 9.04 AND 10.x in 11.x.
>
> No.
>
> Stuff from 9.04 should work without any changes in
> 10.x. However,
> there could be warnings issues for anything that isn't
> being done in
> an optimal way.
>
> This gives downstreams time to fix their 9.04 modules to
> work properly
> for 10.x, before we eventually release 11.x.
I have used patch files for that and it hasn't been a big issue. For example, my production deployment patch modifies start.properties. In revision 684377 that file was moved to another folder. So, I just updated my patch. I never expected that file's original location to be supported in future versions.
Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Adrian Crum wrote:
> --- On Fri, 2/19/10, Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
>> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 9:45 PM
>> On 19/02/2010, at 10:10 PM, Adrian
>> Crum wrote:
>>
>>> --- On Fri, 2/19/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> From: Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package
>> org.ofbiz.base.types
>>>> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 8:56 PM
>>>> Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>> In the org.ofbiz.base.util package there
>> are
>>>> interfaces and classes that don't really belong
>> there - they
>>>> are data types, not utility classes. It would be
>> nice if we
>>>> could create a new package to contain basic data
>> types:
>>>> org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package would
>> contain things
>>>> like: Appender, DateRange, Factory, Range,
>> ComparableRange,
>>>> TimeDuration, etc.
>>>>>> The org.ofbiz.base.util package could be
>>>> (informally) limited to classes that follow the
>> utility
>>>> class pattern (only static methods, private
>> constructor,
>>>> etc).
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.lang
>>>> Where ever they get moved to, you need to check
>> for classes
>>>> that
>>>> existed in a previous release, and make certain
>> they still
>>>> exist, and
>>>> just extend the classes that were copied to the
>> new
>>>> location. Then,
>>>> add deprecation to the old versions.
>>> I probably wouldn't do that. I understand what you're
>> getting at, but it adds unnecessary code and complexity to
>> the project. Anyone wanting to upgrade from a release who
>> used the affected classes could do a simple search and
>> replace on the import statements.
>>> Things like this have been moved around before.
>> I agree with Adam, in an ideal world, one would be able to
>> uplift their hot-deploy components from 9.04 and drop them
>> into 10.x without any issues. We're probably still a
>> long way from that but I don't think we should make things
>> any harder for the user than we need to.
>
> So, where does that process end? Should hot-deploy components from 10.x drop into 11.x without any issues? That would require maintaining code from 9.04 AND 10.x in 11.x.
No.
Stuff from 9.04 should work without any changes in 10.x. However,
there could be warnings issues for anything that isn't being done in
an optimal way.
This gives downstreams time to fix their 9.04 modules to work properly
for 10.x, before we eventually release 11.x.
Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Fri, 2/19/10, Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> From: Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 9:45 PM
> On 19/02/2010, at 10:10 PM, Adrian
> Crum wrote:
>
> > --- On Fri, 2/19/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
> wrote:
> >> From: Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
> >> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package
> org.ofbiz.base.types
> >> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> >> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 8:56 PM
> >> Adam Heath wrote:
> >>> Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>> In the org.ofbiz.base.util package there
> are
> >> interfaces and classes that don't really belong
> there - they
> >> are data types, not utility classes. It would be
> nice if we
> >> could create a new package to contain basic data
> types:
> >> org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package would
> contain things
> >> like: Appender, DateRange, Factory, Range,
> ComparableRange,
> >> TimeDuration, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> The org.ofbiz.base.util package could be
> >> (informally) limited to classes that follow the
> utility
> >> class pattern (only static methods, private
> constructor,
> >> etc).
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> org.ofbiz.base.lang
> >>
> >> Where ever they get moved to, you need to check
> for classes
> >> that
> >> existed in a previous release, and make certain
> they still
> >> exist, and
> >> just extend the classes that were copied to the
> new
> >> location. Then,
> >> add deprecation to the old versions.
> >
> > I probably wouldn't do that. I understand what you're
> getting at, but it adds unnecessary code and complexity to
> the project. Anyone wanting to upgrade from a release who
> used the affected classes could do a simple search and
> replace on the import statements.
> >
> > Things like this have been moved around before.
>
> I agree with Adam, in an ideal world, one would be able to
> uplift their hot-deploy components from 9.04 and drop them
> into 10.x without any issues. We're probably still a
> long way from that but I don't think we should make things
> any harder for the user than we need to.
So, where does that process end? Should hot-deploy components from 10.x drop into 11.x without any issues? That would require maintaining code from 9.04 AND 10.x in 11.x.
Keep in mind that the more code we write, the more code we have to maintain.
Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On 19/02/2010, at 10:10 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> --- On Fri, 2/19/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com> wrote:
>> From: Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
>> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
>> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 8:56 PM
>> Adam Heath wrote:
>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> In the org.ofbiz.base.util package there are
>> interfaces and classes that don't really belong there - they
>> are data types, not utility classes. It would be nice if we
>> could create a new package to contain basic data types:
>> org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package would contain things
>> like: Appender, DateRange, Factory, Range, ComparableRange,
>> TimeDuration, etc.
>>>>
>>>> The org.ofbiz.base.util package could be
>> (informally) limited to classes that follow the utility
>> class pattern (only static methods, private constructor,
>> etc).
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> org.ofbiz.base.lang
>>
>> Where ever they get moved to, you need to check for classes
>> that
>> existed in a previous release, and make certain they still
>> exist, and
>> just extend the classes that were copied to the new
>> location. Then,
>> add deprecation to the old versions.
>
> I probably wouldn't do that. I understand what you're getting at, but it adds unnecessary code and complexity to the project. Anyone wanting to upgrade from a release who used the affected classes could do a simple search and replace on the import statements.
>
> Things like this have been moved around before.
I agree with Adam, in an ideal world, one would be able to uplift their hot-deploy components from 9.04 and drop them into 10.x without any issues. We're probably still a long way from that but I don't think we should make things any harder for the user than we need to.
Regards
Scott
Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Fri, 2/19/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com> wrote:
> From: Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 8:56 PM
> Adam Heath wrote:
> > Adrian Crum wrote:
> >> In the org.ofbiz.base.util package there are
> interfaces and classes that don't really belong there - they
> are data types, not utility classes. It would be nice if we
> could create a new package to contain basic data types:
> org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package would contain things
> like: Appender, DateRange, Factory, Range, ComparableRange,
> TimeDuration, etc.
> >>
> >> The org.ofbiz.base.util package could be
> (informally) limited to classes that follow the utility
> class pattern (only static methods, private constructor,
> etc).
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > org.ofbiz.base.lang
>
> Where ever they get moved to, you need to check for classes
> that
> existed in a previous release, and make certain they still
> exist, and
> just extend the classes that were copied to the new
> location. Then,
> add deprecation to the old versions.
I probably wouldn't do that. I understand what you're getting at, but it adds unnecessary code and complexity to the project. Anyone wanting to upgrade from a release who used the affected classes could do a simple search and replace on the import statements.
Things like this have been moved around before.
Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Adam Heath wrote:
> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> In the org.ofbiz.base.util package there are interfaces and classes that don't really belong there - they are data types, not utility classes. It would be nice if we could create a new package to contain basic data types: org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package would contain things like: Appender, DateRange, Factory, Range, ComparableRange, TimeDuration, etc.
>>
>> The org.ofbiz.base.util package could be (informally) limited to classes that follow the utility class pattern (only static methods, private constructor, etc).
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> org.ofbiz.base.lang
Where ever they get moved to, you need to check for classes that
existed in a previous release, and make certain they still exist, and
just extend the classes that were copied to the new location. Then,
add deprecation to the old versions.
Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Adrian Crum wrote:
> In the org.ofbiz.base.util package there are interfaces and classes that don't really belong there - they are data types, not utility classes. It would be nice if we could create a new package to contain basic data types: org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package would contain things like: Appender, DateRange, Factory, Range, ComparableRange, TimeDuration, etc.
>
> The org.ofbiz.base.util package could be (informally) limited to classes that follow the utility class pattern (only static methods, private constructor, etc).
>
> What do you think?
org.ofbiz.base.lang
Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
Based on the replies to this thread, I created a new package - org.ofbiz.base.lang - and I moved some classes there. Revision 916987.
-Adrian
--- On Fri, 2/19/10, Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types
> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 8:32 PM
> In the org.ofbiz.base.util package
> there are interfaces and classes that don't really belong
> there - they are data types, not utility classes. It would
> be nice if we could create a new package to contain basic
> data types: org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package would
> contain things like: Appender, DateRange, Factory, Range,
> ComparableRange, TimeDuration, etc.
>
> The org.ofbiz.base.util package could be (informally)
> limited to classes that follow the utility class pattern
> (only static methods, private constructor, etc).
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Adrian
>
>
>
>
>