directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Checkstyle questions: inline conditionals, protected fields, Javadoc for private members
Date Mon, 04 Oct 2010 08:29:20 GMT
  On 10/4/10 10:11 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Hi dev,
>
> we are trying to fix remaining checkstyle errors in shared [1] and
> have some questions:
>
>
> 1. Inline Conditionals
> We have 151 inline conditionals, should we get rid of them or should
> we allow them?
>
> IMO 'simple' inline conditionals are ok:
>    return oid == null ? "" : oid;
>
> Such constructs could be simplified
>    return ( ( byteArray[index] == car ) ? true : false );
> to
>    return byteArray[index] == car;
>
> However nested inline conditionals are hard to read and should be avoided:
>    return ( val<  0 ? -1 : ( val>  0 ? 1 : val ) );

IMO, we should avoid inline conditionals.

> 2. Protected Fields
> We have 135 fields with 'protected' modifier. Checkstyle complains
> that instead the modifier should be private accessor methods should be
> used. The rationale is to enforce encapsulation. Should we configure
> checkstyle to allow protected and/or package modifiers?
I think 'protected' is useful to distinguish local fields from those 
that are contained in the class but can be used by the inherited 
classes. I don't think we should remove them.

All in all, we always use either private or public fields, except when 
we decide to use protected ones, so it's a decision we make based on a 
serious thought. Let's keep them.

>
> 3. Javadoc for Private Members
> Checkstyle complains about missing Javadoc of private fields. I think
> we should relax that rule and don't force Javadoc for private fields
> because IMO the variable name should be descriptive. Thoughts?
+1


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny
www.iktek.com


Mime
View raw message