commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <>
Subject Re: Comment on (re-vote) XxxUtils constructors
Date Mon, 19 Aug 2002 02:11:08 GMT
On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 20:01, Steve Downey wrote:

> Jason van Zyl recently complained about code reformatting. I think that's 
> wrong. Commons owns the code, regardless of where it came from. Local 
> conventions should apply. If Turbine adopts the commons fileupload, they 
> won't ever see the source. However, if it were changed in some way that made 
> it really unuseable for Turbine, he'd have a legit gripe.

First of all: what local convention? Sun coding style? That certainly
has not been decided upon as a local convention. It's listed as a
resource in the charter but not compulsory as far as I'm aware.

When I see a coding style in a commons package and make additions I use
the existing style, used by the original authors. There are mixed styles
in all packages.

The fileupload code came from Turbine originally and with it the coding
convention. I asked politely to put it back the way it was, and that
checkstyle could be made to adhere to the original style.

The code may be in the Commons but I don't think it is unfair that the
original authors wishes be respected as far as coding conventions go.
That's just simple courtesy. I'm not in any way saying that Martin meant
any disrespect, I set up the checkstyle properties incorrectly so my
bad. I would just like it put back with the coding convention used when
it originally landed in the Commons. 

It seems lately there is a muted hostility toward divergence from
'common' practice or convention while disregarding general pragmatism
and courtesy. 

The public constructor business is definitely an example: where chunks
of the code originally came from Velocity and Turbine and a proposal is
actually considered that makes that code unusable to those projects in a
direct form. Geir was an original proponents of the commons and pushed
to make code reusable and to disregard the spirit of that effort, even
in the face of stated technical/stylistic reasons seems unreasonable to

The same goes with the stated disregard to having code that originally
came from Turbine being left using the Turbine coding conventions. To me
that also seems unreasonable.

> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

Jason van Zyl

In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
  -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message