commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Keyes <j...@mac.com>
Subject Re: Coding conventions in Commons
Date Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:47:59 GMT
That sounds like the best approach to me.  In CLI we
had the policy of coding standards but not style 
standards i.e. we don't care if you put { on new lines
or on the same line, but the method better have javadoc.

I like the POI doc it details this very well.

-John K

On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 09:33, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> POI Resolution 001 - Minimal Coding Standards
> 
> http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/resolutions/res001.html
> 
> 
> Juozas Baliuka wrote:
> > Hi,
> > It is very trivial to choose style for me:
> > Microsoft recomendations for MFC application.
> > Borland   recomendations for VCL component.
> > STL style for "pure" C++ code.
> > Sun code conventions for the Java.
> > ......................................................
> > 
> > It is not because they are "good" or I like them, but because  they are
> > "well known",
> > and I don't think it is some meaning to invent a new one.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin Cooper" <martin.cooper@tumbleweed.com>
> > To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 5:31 AM
> > Subject: Coding conventions in Commons
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>I seem to have unwittingly caused discussion of this subject in multiple
> >>threads now, so I figured that perhaps it should have a thread of its own.
> >>
> >>Yesterday, I changed the coding style of the FileUpload project from its
> >>original Turbine style to the Sun conventions. I did that because I
> >>perceived the Commons conventions to be the Sun ones, and because I wanted
> >>to clean up the Checkstyle complaints that were being generated. I
> > 
> > certainly
> > 
> >>intended no disrespect to the original authors of the code.
> >>
> >>Jason has requested that the code be reverted to the Turbine conventions,
> >>since that is where the code originally came from. A couple of people have
> >>stated that the code should not be reverted, because the Sun conventions
> > 
> > are
> > 
> >>the Commons conventions. Finally, Jason has pointed out that there is no
> >>agreed convention in Commons.
> >>
> >>For reference, here are the messages involved so far:
> >>
> >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-dev&m=102967366201849&w=2
> >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-dev&m=102970211418160&w=2
> >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-dev&m=102971538626083&w=2
> >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-dev&m=102972335730128&w=2
> >>
> >>and here are some Commons references:
> >>
> >>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/charter.html#Resources
> >>http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html
> >>
> >>In the last of these links, the following statement is made regarding
> > 
> > coding
> > 
> >>conventions:
> >>
> >>---------------
> >>All Java Language source code in the repository must be written in
> >>conformance to the "Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language" as
> >>published by Sun, or in conformance with another well-defined convention
> >>specified by the subproject.
> >>---------------
> >>
> >>That seems to state that each Jakarta subproject - of which Commons is
> > 
> > one -
> > 
> >>must define one coding convention for all of its code. That, in turn,
> >>implies that Commons should have one coding convention across all Commons
> >>components. The above also implies that Commons has elected to follow the
> >>Sun conventions, by virtue of the fact that no other well-defined
> > 
> > convention
> > 
> >>has been adopted.
> >>
> >>I want to point out that I am not averse to reverting the changes I made
> > 
> > to
> > 
> >>FileUpload (although I have a mild personal preference for the Sun
> >>guidelines :). However, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary,
> >>this would appear to violate the statement quoted above.
> >>
> >>So that we are all on the same page going forward, then, I think we need
> > 
> > to
> > 
> >>explicitly state what the coding conventions for Commons are. Either we
> > 
> > have
> > 
> >>to define a single set of conventions across all components, or we
> >>presumably have to "get permission" for Commons to have divergent sets of
> >>conventions in the same Jakarta subproject.
> >>
> >>Comments?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Martin Cooper
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > 
> > <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> > 
> >>For additional commands, e-mail:
> > 
> > <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
>              - verba volant, scripta manent -
>     (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message