Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Suggested coding convention: sort methods
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:48:09 -0400
Message-ID: <12699E67B31DA44EBC6EFBB4C62F45355B64E7@fei0018m001.hq.ferg.com>
Thread-Topic: Suggested coding convention: sort methods
Thread-Index: AcNhmCPG4DR6ghX3STWH58iF1BCKLAAAEp0QAAARG7A=
From: <Dirk.Weibel@ferguson.com>
To: <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>

One convention I've grown fond of is placing declaring an instance =
variable immediately preceeding its' getter and setter.  I find it =
speeds the refactoring of beans.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Jackson [mailto:adrian@dynamicweb.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:44 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Suggested coding convention: sort methods
>=20
>=20
> Eclipse users shouldn't care that much, since the outline view can be
> sorted alphabetically anyway. :) I think it would be nice if=20
> there were
> *some* logic at least to the code, but I don't know that I=20
> agree this is
> the right approach to take - I quite like my accessor methods=20
> to be next
> to each other, for example...
>=20
> Adrian
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Blewitt [mailto:Alex.Blewitt@ioshq.com]=20
> Sent: 13 August 2003 13:41
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Suggested coding convention: sort methods
>=20
>=20
> One coding convention I've used in the past is sorting the=20
> contents of=20
> a file into alphabetical order. Some may argue that it makes=20
> it easier=20
> to find things; some may not care. A few of you will probably say it=20
> makes it worse :-)
>=20
> One good thing about such a standard is that it is a standard=20
> that can=20
> be followed (and/or applied automatically to existing code). In much=20
> the same way that everyone working on a common coding convention will=20
> find things easier if everyone does it, the same can also apply to=20
> sorting the members.
>=20
> Eclipse provides a way of configuring the sort orders as follows:
>=20
> static fields (*)
> static initialisers
> static methods
> instance fields
> instance initialiser
> constructors
> instance methods
>=20
> A nice property of a sorted file when using a source code control=20
> system that diffs is that diffs between two sorted files are=20
> likely to=20
> be the smallest possible (and perhaps, easier to merge when conflicts=20
> occur).
>=20
> Of course, I suspect that many people will not be using=20
> Eclipse (or one=20
> that doesn't offer such sorting functionality) so perhaps this should=20
> be a recommendation rather than a standard, but if people=20
> think that it=20
> will make sense then we can work towards it. And it means if=20
> you add a=20
> few methods, trying to put them in the right 'sorted' place will then=20
> help.
>=20
> What do people think?
>=20
> flameSuit.setEnabled(true)
>=20
>=20