beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeremiah Johnson" <jerjo...@bea.com>
Subject RE: reformatting the wsm code
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:00:45 GMT
I think that Eddie was suggesting that Checkstyle be used alongside the
DRT's as check-in criteria (if it is decided that coding standards are
appropriate for Beehive).  If that is the case, then a common IDE
configuration would be helpful, but the pre-check-in tests would be the
enforcer.

I think that deciding to use Checkstyle sooner rather than later would
be best.  The necessary reformatting could be done soon so as the
features and fixes get underway for the next milestone or release of
Beehive, there isn't some set of format-only check-ins.

http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/

Checkstyle defaults to the Sun code conventions (although, I don't know
what it does about recommendations like 'avoid lines longer than 80
characters).

http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConvTOC.doc.html

I think that the next step is to have the discussion on the separate
thread about whether the standards are a good thing.  One other note:
Checkstyle uses LGPL - I assume that the LGPL is compatible with the
Apache project rules, but I could be wrong?

- jeremiah

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daryoush Mehrtash
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:24 PM
> To: Beehive Developers; Chad Schoettger
> Subject: RE: reformatting the wsm code
> 
> The CheckStyle would fix the problem now,  but If we want to have a
> consistent coding style I suggest we have a common code formatter for
> the IDEs that people use.
> 
> Daryoush
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chad Schoettger [mailto:chad.schoettger@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:39 PM
> > To: Beehive Developers
> > Subject: Re: reformatting the wsm code
> >
> > After looking at the code in question: PLEASE REFORMAT IT.  It will
> > make it much easier to read and understand.
> >
> > I'm on the fence about enforcing coding styles.  I think that
overall
> >  it would probably be a good thing  especially for someone who is
> > exploring the beehive source code for the first time.  IMHO it gives
> > the code a more consistant and unified feel.
> >
> >  - Chad
> >
> > On 6/1/05, Richard Feit <richard.feit@bea.com> wrote:
> > > Sure, sounds good to me.  Enforcing a consistent style across the
> board
> > > (with CheckStyle) would be swell.  We can spin up a thread after
> we're
> > > finished with the release.
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> > > Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >   Agreed.  There are some things in WSM that could use a "simple
> > > > cleanup", for example methods that take parameters which aren't
> used
> > > > and declare exceptions that aren't thrown.  We'll get to that
> next...
> > > >
> > > >   First, I'd just like to "reformat" the code so that it's more
> > > > consistent relative to the rest of Beehive (which isn't
formatted
> that
> > > > differently).
> > > >
> > > >   Note, I'm not trying to enforce my coding style across the
board
> --
> > > > just *some* standard.  :) If anyone else wants to reformat, feel
> free,
> > > > and that would work for me.  Just going for some consistency and
> > > > readability improvement.
> > > >
> > > >   If we want to declare a set of formatting standards for all of
> > > > Beehive, we might be able to agree on that.  :)
> > > >
> > > >   But, if we do it, we should also use CheckStyle to enforce it
> like
> > > > Struts does.
> > > >
> > > > Eddie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Feit wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I'm OK with that... will start another thread.  But in that
case,
> > > >> "simple cleanup" seems different than doing a "reformat".  :)
> The
> > > >> latter seems problematic to me if we don't have a set of
> formatting
> > > >> standards.  But no big deal...
> > > >>
> > > >> Rich
> > > >>
> > > >> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   I'm not looking for an uber-standard here.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   Just some simple cleanup.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   If we want to have a standard, we could re-discuss that --
> thought
> > > >>> we'd decided earlier not to do that  ;) -- but, let's do it in
> > > >>> another thread.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> EKO
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Feit wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Ooh, code formatting standards.  :)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> While my quirky code formatting (mostly in NetUI code BTW)
> would
> > > >>>> certainly have to change, I think it would be worthwhile for
us
> to
> > > >>>> agree on some formatting standards if possible.  Anyone else
> > > >>>> interested in going down that road?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Rich
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> All--
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>   I'm looking through some of the WSM code which has some
> > > >>>>> inconsistent formatting (tabs, weird line breaks, etc).
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>   Anyone mind if I reformat it to look like most of the
NetUI
> code
> > > >>>>> base?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Eddie
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 



Mime
View raw message