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 17:32:15 GMT
(IANACommitter) I don't think that Checkstyle is critical to Beehive -
my point about sooner rather than later was about timing in relation to
features / bugs in Beehive.  Since the 1.0m1-rc2 vote goes on until
Sat/Sun, I figured that now is a better time than next week or next
month to implement Checkstyle because the result will likely be lots of
reformatting checkins.

The main point of my previous post was to send out some more information
about Checkstyle and how it might be used.  I misunderstood your
(Eddie's) statement and was trying to support what I thought you were
saying :)

When running Checkstyle from Ant, you can specify if you want to just
generate output or also fail the build.  I assumed you wanted the output
and also failure.  If you just want the output, then you can implement
Checkstyle at anytime and those that don't want it don't have to run it.

- jeremiah

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eddie ONeil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:19 AM
> To: Beehive Developers
> Subject: Re: reformatting the wsm code
> 
>   So, I think that using CheckStyle would be a good long term option /
> solution for both code formatting and style conventions (like using
> private fields, implementing hashCode when implementing equals, and
> having reasonable method signatures).  Though, I don't think it's
> critical enough to coding in Beehive that it be done immediately.
> 
>   Seems that you feel otherwise?  If so, can you elaborate?
> 
>   Also, I actually wasn't suggesting that this be added to the checkin
> criteria.  Would need to do some more investigation of CheckStyle to
> see how it's used, reports, etc before I'd suggest that.  And, all of
> the committers would need to chime in on whether they see value in
> this as a tool or as a tool and additional checkin step.
> 
> Eddie
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/2/05, Jeremiah Johnson <jerjohns@bea.com> wrote:
> > 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