beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daryl Olander <dolan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: checkstyle and code conventions
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:48:47 GMT
I think we are pretty close to agreement, though we haven't heard from
a lot of people.  I think the biggest source of debate is code changes
(like renaming interfaces and variables).  This may be style, but
there are code changes in public APIs that would be required to match
this spec.

On 6/8/05, Kyle Marvin <kylemarvin@gmail.com> wrote:
> This whole thread is a good argument for why you should just use the
> standard Sun/Java conventions without mods...  I think you'll end up
> in a long debate over the mods where no one is ever satisfied.
> Coding conventions are just too much about style and thus, there is no
> "right" or "wrong" to ground the debate.
> 
> On 6/8/05, Eddie ONeil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  The "I" naming convention is applied to only Java interfaces like:
> >
> >  public interface IFoo {...}
> >
> > It's not meant to be used on abstract base classes -- which aren't
> > interfaces -- just an API.
> >
> >  It's really meant to make very obvious in code what is and is not an
> > interface without having to consult the Javadoc.
> >
> 
> This seems somewhat dubious to me... when do I ever use a class or
> interface _without_ consulting the Javadoc to know what it does?   If
> I am a casual user (i.e not subclassing a class or implementing the
> interface, just interacting with an instance), I generally don't
> really care whether it is a class or interface.
> 
> Also, you can't go back and "fix" existing interfaces, lest you create
> major back compat issues... so you are going to end up with
> inconsistency anyway.
>

Mime
View raw message