Mailing-List: contact dev-help@click.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@click.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of
 gcwcd-click-development-2@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.12 as permitted
 sender)
To: dev@click.apache.org
connect(): No such file or directory
From: "Adrian A." <a.adrian.tech@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Sourcecode at 80 chars width only?
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 10:37:30 +0200
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <htapgd$jui$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <1273581734921-5035752.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <hsglu2$ebg$1@dough.gmane.org> <htam9a$b6f$1@dough.gmane.org>
 <4BF8E21E.5080300@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.121.188.115
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
In-Reply-To: <4BF8E21E.5080300@gmail.com>

> I much prefer scrolling vertically than horizontally.
I would prefer not to scroll at all :).
(At most, to simply just "paginate" like in a book or PDF, but this is 
impossible with source code :) ).

> Did a quick test on my laptop and 120 is too wide.
Strange :(. I tested this on a few laptops (tiny netbook too), and on 
all it looked fantastic and much more readable than the 80 - without
any horizontal scrolling.

> I often have windows on the left and right of the editor.
Oh :). The practice(requirement) on most projects where I worked was to
make the windows on the right to (auto)hide when the editor windows in 
the center has the focus. This is simple to achieve with IntelliJ, and
I've seen others with NB doing too - I'm sure Eclipse has something like
this too. There must be also shortcuts for each operation (for very fast 
and efficient work).
The only exception is when using a GUI builder (but that wouldn't be the 
case when working on or with Click :) ).

> Perhaps 100 is more reasonable.
I checked 100 too right after George posted this thread, but 100 
wouldn't bring much - just too many simple one line statements would be 
still on two lines :( (only some of the javadocs would take a little 
less vertical space) :(.
IMHO, if it's worth doing it, than only at 120.

> Remember that not only code but also docbook will be affected by this change.
OK, ... . I intended first only the source code (especially that under 
the checkstyle scan), but it's not a problem to extend it everywhere.

> If we do make this change I'd really like to hold this off until I integrate the Ajax code which
> I've developed on a separate branch.
Could you please point to that branch? (Two?) click users are about to 
publish their (re)view on the
Ajax WIKI proposal, and I was kindly asked to take a look.

Thanks in advance,
Adrian.