----- Original Message -----
From: "Lior Vernia" <lvernia@redhat.com> To: "Gilad Chaplik" <gchaplik@redhat.com> Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs@redhat.com>, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5:32:38 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Custom Properties code duplication
On 07/05/14 16:02, Gilad Chaplik wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lior Vernia" <lvernia@redhat.com> To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 7:08:23 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Custom Properties code duplication
Hey guys (and gals),
A few patches are up for review starting at: http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/27383
In total, about 250 lines of code removed, hopefully not at the cost of regression. I put down some reviewers as I saw fit, but everyone can feel free to add themselves. Summary of what was done compared to the original plan:
1. Removed said dependencies, except for DeviceCustomPropertiesUtils that was using the capture groups features of Pattern, and thus remained in the utils project.
2. Done.
3. Done.
4. Almost didn't touch this, it seems to involve a lot of moving parts.
Yours, Lior.
On 30/04/14 18:01, Vojtech Szocs wrote:
Hi Lior, please find my comments inline.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> To: "Lior Vernia" <lvernia@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:28:06 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Custom Properties code duplication
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lior Vernia" <lvernia@redhat.com> To: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:52:16 PM Subject: [ovirt-devel] Custom Properties code duplication
Hello,
While adding network custom properties towards oVirt 3.5, I got to take a good look at the custom properties code in the backend and frontend. It seems to me like there's a lot of code duplication, and I would like to suggest the following refactoring:
1. Remove dependencies on Pattern/Matcher and ApacheCommons methods from *CustomPropertiesUtils.java, to make them compilable with GWT, and move these utilities to the common package. The usage of the said methods is minimal and could easily be replaced with String methods, etc.
+1
In general I am in favor, but how are you going to perform the regex validation of values? for example , with vm custom properties, you have - sap_agent that can be either true or false. So you need to validate both at the client and the engine, right?
Lior mentioned above the possibility of using String methods, I assume by this he means java.lang.String.matches(String) and similar methods.
During GWT compilation, JRE standard String implementation is replaced by emulated (GWT-friendly) String implementation, which implements methods like matches(String) using JavaScript RegExp object. You can find this emulated implementation here:
gwt-user-{version}-sources.jar/com/google/gwt/emul/java/lang/String.java
Another alternative is to use GWT's built-in regex support through com.google.gwt.regexp.shared.RegExp class. GWT's RegExp class has two implementations, default one using JRE Pattern/Matcher, emulated one using JavaScript RegExp object. The advantage is (mostly) consistent regex support on both client and server, the disadvantage is server's dependency on GWT JAR. (I don't think we want this.)
For simple regex matches, I'd suggest to simply go with String approach.
For complex regex matches, we can use JRE Pattern/Matcher on server, and emulate given implementation using GWT RegExp on client.
Note that there are (slight) differences between JRE's Pattern/Matcher and JavaScript's RegExp object syntax/behavior. Check GWT RegExp class Javadoc to see details (for simple cases, it's not a big deal, though).
2. Modify KeyValueModel to delegate to the common utilities instead of duplicating code, e.g. for validation.
+1
I see that KeyValueModel uses RegexValidation class that delegates to compat's Regex class. Just like above, default Regex class utilizes JRE Pattern/Matcher but client uses emuluated implementation:
gwt-extension/src/main/java/org/ovirt/engine/ui/uioverrides/org/ovirt/engine/core/compat/Regex.java
and this emulated implementation uses GWT RegExp class.
3. Move some validation, which is relevant to all custom properties (e.g. duplicate keys), from specific utils (e.g. VmPropertiesUtils) up to the shared CustomPropertiesUtils.
+1
4. Optionally change the implementation of custom properties members in entities (e.g. VM) from String to Map<String, String>, which would obviate the need for different conversion methods between String/Map - (de)serialization would only be required in DB interaction.
+1
3,4 Agreed - good points.
The main argument against this would be that the frontend is to be moved over the REST, and might not be written in Java much longer anyway.
:) I think there's a misunderstanding regarding our move to REST API.
I think there isn't any misunderstanding here. I think that common code is not the best practice here, as Lior mentioned briefly. IMO one of the main reasons of using the REST is repo/project separation, some points to consider:
1) who will maintain the common code, both UI and core maintainers, we're missing the point, no?
That's not how I see it. Common code is exactly that - common. If the validation is the same in the backend and in the frontend (which it often is), then it's better to share the one library between them than write the code twice.
The alternative would be to query the backend for validation, but in some contexts it just wouldn't be responsive enough (e.g. dragging in setup networks).
As i see it, there are JS (client) validations server validations, they are inherently different. For responsive validations you have JS validations (duplicated as you call it)/ or you can query the server for generated JS file (probably not going to happen). You didn't answer my question about maintainers.
2) no dependency separation in UI code.
You could still compile the UI without the engine and the engine without the UI and everything would work fine. They just both depend on the same library (but it doesn't have to be the same version in both).
According to what you're saying, your patches should get rejected, because you move the code to Common project and that's what we're trying to avoid.
3) complexity.
This is part of what having common libraries aims to reduce.
what is 'common' lib btw?, backend/manager/modules/common is the wrong answer.
4) compatibility.
As mentioned above, I don't see how compatibility is compromised.
As I said, +1 for your patches, because they're already submitted, and they're good for the very immediate future (fyi, regressions is sth that I didn't consider, this will be yours and the reviewers responsibility), but note that the code will be duplicated soon, and altered to meet REST entities; all of this will happen in the near future (near is relative :-)). Thanks, Gilad.
In conclusion, I don't understand the motivation, but... as I commented in the patch... +1.
Thanks, Gilad.
The plan is to have JavaScript SDK for working with REST API (so that any JavaScript client can work with Engine, be it web application in browser, server application on node.js etc.), and for our GWT-based UI, generate GWT/Java overlay code that delegates (via JSNI) to JavaScript.
This is similar approach to projects like SmartGWT which are simply overlays (wrappers) to native JavaScript library (like SmartClient).
So the frontend code will still be GWT/Java, it will just consume JavaScript SDK via the above mentioned overlay code for seamless SDK user experience in GWT/Java context.
We may think of implementing parts of UI in JavaScript, though. For example, utilizing UI plugins to implement different UI parts as plugins, possibly by using JavaScript directly (which could use JavaScript SDK). However, this is something different and requires deeper thought.
However, to my understanding, there's some time until these changes take effect. And even if the frontend is to be written in JavaScript, at least initially the existing frontend code will have to still be used somehow (e.g. auto-translated to JavaScript). That is to say, this refactoring might still be beneficial for the not-so-short term.
I think this refactoring will be beneficial also in long term :)
I agree with you here.
Before going through with this, I wanted to ask for your thoughts and to hear any specific objections to the proposed changes.
Yours, Lior. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel