beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eddie ONeil <ekon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: reformatting the wsm code
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:19:23 GMT
  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