Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7415525D-7AD2-40F6-9A8F-A2DDF7BE5876@bennet-schulz.de>
References: <CACHnxzzTiPQcBdxj1ZP1HPJhYdQ71sLO6A3fbQ-t7+ySPGG_ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <7415525D-7AD2-40F6-9A8F-A2DDF7BE5876@bennet-schulz.de>
From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:02:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKF+bsr985V2z0V-tyyph_Ou=87BpTezbNJ+S6VtvUy=trUTMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis coding style part 2
To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
archived-at: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:02:28 -0000

Yep.. I will make the change.


there is no reason it wasn't done before other than.. .oops ;)

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Bennet Schulz <mail@bennet-schulz.de> wrot=
e:
> I personally prefer the 2nd one, but in my opinion it=E2=80=99s not that =
important. Take whatever you want as long as the the whole product stays as=
 good as it already is ;-)
>
>
>> Am 29.09.2016 um 20:41 schrieb Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shanno=
n@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hey Everyone,
>>
>> Last year we had a discussion on the coding style for Artemis and a chan=
ge
>> was made to the opening curly brace.  However, I've been in the code qui=
te
>> a bit the past couple weeks doing testing (I am starting to look at what
>> needs to be done to help move missing features from 5.x) and I've notice=
d a
>> couple of things that still don't match up with the 5.x style.
>>
>> In general I think think we should try and get the style closer to 5.x
>> because it will make going back and forth between to two code bases easi=
er.
>>  The main thing I noticed is the while the opening brace was moved the
>> closing curly brace is still on its own line which doesn't match the sty=
le
>> of 5.x. This makes it a bit annoying when working in one project and the=
n
>> doing work in a different project as suddenly you have to remember where
>> the curly brace is supposed to go.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> Current format:
>>    try {
>>            //do something
>>     }
>>     catch (Exception cause) {
>>
>>      }
>>
>> Proposed format, notice that the catch(Exception) part is on the same li=
ne
>> as the closing brace
>>    try {
>>            //do something
>>     } catch (Exception cause) {
>>
>>     }
>>
>> Thoughts? My preference would be to adopt entire google style guide but =
I
>> think at the least should fix the closing curly brace so it matches up w=
ith
>> 5.x.
>


--=20
Clebert Suconic