db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve coding conventions for the Derby project
Date Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:10:44 GMT
I am happy with this clarification. I would prefer that the proposal 
stated this explicitly so that there is no confusion. I think that if we 
put the emphasis on clarity and common sense then we could drop the 
specific exception called out for the rule on deferred variable 
declarations. It is just one of the religious stands taken by these 

I thought there were some hard-and-fast rules which people wanted for 
new code:

1) 4 space indentation
2) No tabs
3) 80 character lines

Is that not so?


Kathey Marsden wrote:

> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> -1
>> On the whole, I think that the proposed guidelines are decent. 
>> However, I would like us to emphasize that these are guidelines and 
>> not laws.
> I too think we should not be militant about this, think clarity is 
> key, and don't want to see inserted layers of tools to enforce pure 
> structure long term.  This is why I proposed we change the 
> ContributorChecklist to use the word "convention"  and not "standard"  
> indicating that it is a custom or practice. I think that the current 
> wording captures that well and is sufficiently soft  considering the   
> db project guidelines actually sound much more strict
> from : http://db.apache.org/source.html.
> "
> All Java Language source code in the repository must be written in 
> conformance to the " Code Conventions for the Java Programming 
> Language <http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConvTOC.doc.html> 
> as published by Sun, or in conformance with another well-defined 
> convention specified by the subproject.
> "
> Also,  I wanted to mention that it would have been most helpful to get 
> this input in response to earlier threads requesting adjustments to 
> content and wording.  I hope that you will  reconsider whether  
> further wording adjustments are needed at this point.  Perhaps they 
> could occur at the happy time that we take out the Note: section.
> Thanks
> Kathey

View raw message