On 02/03/2013 03:19 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Michael Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 3:12:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Guid & NGuid
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com>
>> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 3:10:14 PM
>> Subject: [Engine-devel] Guid & NGuid
>> In ovirt-engine code we have Guid and NGuid objects.
>> Guid is extends NGuid and also NGuid class has method getValue()
>> which should return Guid.
>> As for me these two classes are look like the same and I don't see
>> much differences between them.
>> My proposal is to remove NGuid and move it functionality to Guid
>> (Because of Guid is much more common)
> i agree, but we need to take another step forward and allow Guid to
> be null (as it should)
> and not assume its EMPTY or have a value (i'm pretty sure we have
> this assumption in many places)
And for the new people out here... why not kill both and use plain standard java UUID?
+1 for using java.util.UUID
NGuid functionality that should be extracted during the refactor is -
1. refactor DB and Java so empty or null return values are null and not
2. the special constructor of NGuid for UUID return by Microsoft AD
should be extracted to a factory/utility
I think we should kill compat, I don't see any value in fixing
anything about it while leaving it intact.
Engine-devel mailing list