beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Feit <richard.f...@bea.com>
Subject Re: checkstyle and code conventions
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:26:26 GMT
I agree... we're amazingly close to agreement (compromise) here.  The 
only snag we've run into is the "I" prefix, and it sounds like we're OK 
with *not* mandating it at this point.  Beyond that, does anyone else 
object to any of the other mods we've made (or to the whole idea)?

Daryl Olander wrote:

>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