camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bilgin Ibryam <bibr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release
Date Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:23:38 GMT
Guys, thanks for fixing the CS and other issues with the Redis component.

I didn't mentioned the new component on the release or components page
because it doesn't have documentation yet.

But I've assigned CAMEL-6001 and will be working on the documentation these
days.
I'd love to see the new component in the coming Camel release.

PS: the reason I postponed the doc page so far is that the component
supports many commands - around 80 and each command might have different
set of parameters, so not sure how to document it in a clever way.
The only way that comes into mind is list each command with its possible
parameters and return types, but that will be a long and slow process. Any
other ideas?

Thanks
Bilgin


> Logged the following 2 tickets regarding this:
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-6001
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-6002
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Currently it has got a CS violation where a method by
> >>CommandDispatcher.java
> >> is 303 lines long (maximum allowed is 200). We could either adjust the
> >>code
> >> or the CS rule for that.
> >>
> >
> >And fell free to fix any CS issues you may encounter reported by the
> >maven tooling.
>
> Actually yesterday I had already fixed all of the CS violations on the
> trunk other than this one (on purpose) as I wanted to ask others about
> their opinion before going for it:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1437208
>
> As this one is different (302 lines of code in one method instead of the
> maximally allowed 200). I propose to relax the checkstyle rule about this,
> let's say 350 lines instead of 200. Then this would already fix this last
> violation automatically. The other option would be to split that method
> into 2 or 3 sub-methods but looking at the logic of that method IMHO this
> wouldn't make much sense.
>
> Following is the checkstyle setting we've got for this:
>
> <module name="MethodLength">
>   <property name="max" value="200"/>
>   <property name="countEmpty" value="false"/>
>         </module>
>
>
> Babak
>
> >
> >
> >> Babak
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Moving-towards-Camel-2-11-relea
> >>se-tp5725088p5726054.html
> >> Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Claus Ibsen
> >-----------------
> >Red Hat, Inc.
> >FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> >Email: cibsen@redhat.com
> >Web: http://fusesource.com
> >Twitter: davsclaus
> >Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> >Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message