Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <7324787.1154648838711.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kathey Marsden (JIRA)" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1363) Derby should publish a well defined
 coding convention per the db project guidlines
In-Reply-To: <10624712.1149120630895.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1363?page=comments#action_12425637 ] 
            
Kathey Marsden commented on DERBY-1363:
---------------------------------------

Putting handling of existing code aside, I would like to propose  we adopt  the client code format moving forward.    My reasons have nothing to do with love of that  actual format  but are as follows:

1) We need a coding convention to be in compliance with the db project guidlines.
2) A large portion of the code is already in that format, Jeremy made a pass after contribution.
3) This issue has wasted huge amounts of time for the Derby community and burnt virtually every new developer.
4) The format if as Jeremy described should be fairly easy to configure in most IDE's.

Here is Jeremy's description of that format.
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Reformat-client-code--p9229.html
It needs to be researched and documented and perhaps items that are already on the checklist like 80 characters per line added.

Jeremy sure was right about the bikeshed discussion [1]  and very wise to just pull the band-aid off quick despite all the whining by me and others.  Please before you consider raising serious objections to this consider all it has and will cost the project if we don't come to consensus on this.  

If  there are no objections,   we can then take the next step to document the format and next figure out how to get there for the full code base, but if we can get past this step I think we will have made great progress on this issue.

Kathey

http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.19.shtml


> Derby should publish a well defined coding convention per the db project guidlines
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-1363
>                 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1363
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Web Site
>            Reporter: Kathey Marsden
>             Fix For: 10.2.0.0
>
>
> The DB project guidlines dictate that we should have a well defined convention for coding standards.
> http://db.apache.org/source.html says
> "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. See the FAQ page  for links to subproject conventions."
> We should publish at least a well defined convention for new code in order to comply with the db project guidlines.
> Discussion for whether to reformat or not once that is decided is under discussion in the thread:
> http://www.nabble.com/Code+formatting+debate%2C+confusion+and+wasted+time+%2C+Has+it+gone+on+long+enough--t1710825.html
> but at least the coding standards should be defined.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira