giraph-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hyunsik Choi <hyun...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Order of imports
Date Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:20:23 GMT
If IDE configurations should be provided, they can be available from the
web page. For example, the section 'Generating Patches' in the home (
http://giraph.apache.org) would be good place.

--
Hyunsik Choi

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Alessandro Presta <alessandro@fb.com> wrote:

> I don't think we currently have IDE configurations in the repo. We should
> do that. I can see how that works for IntelliJ IDEA. Anyone using Eclipse?
>
> On 7/1/12 11:06 PM, "Hyunsik Choi" <hyunsik@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >That seems a great idea. In addition to the order of imports, it will be
> >better if all coding convention is included in both IDE configurations.
> >
> >--
> >Hyunsik Choi
> >
> >On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Avery Ching <avery.ching@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I think uniformity is good.  I think as long as IDE's support our rules
> >> (as Alessandro mentioned) this can only be better.  We can continue this
> >> discussion per GIRAPH-230.
> >>
> >> Avery
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/1/12 8:35 AM, Alessandro Presta wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think we should strive to make the signal-to-noise ratio of our
> >>>diffs as
> >>> high as possible, while at the same time enforce a certain level of
> >>> uniformity.
> >>> Besides, we already have a bunch of conventions for imports in
> >>> checkstyle.xml, so this is straightforward.
> >>> IDEA (and I'm pretty sure Eclipse too) can organize your imports given
> >>>a
> >>> set of rules, and there are also Checkstyle plugins that run checks
> >>>while
> >>> you're coding.
> >>>
> >>> On 6/30/12 6:43 AM, "Jakob Homan" <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  My thought is that after reviewing a lot of patches, I honestly don't
> >>>> care about the imports... If your IDE can do something sensible with
> >>>> them, that's great.  But they have no effect on the code or add any
> >>>> extra effort to the code reviews.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Avery Ching <aching@apache.org>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It's not silly at all.  I suggest that we add some checkstyle rules
> >>>>>for
> >>>>> enforcing our convention as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>http://checkstyle.sourceforge.**net/config_imports.html<
> http://checkst
> >>>>>yle.sourceforge.net/config_imports.html>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I like AvoidStarImport, RedundantImport, UnusedImports, and (most
> >>>>> related to
> >>>>> this question) ImportOrder.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Avery
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 6/29/12 8:23 AM, Alessandro Presta wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Kind of a silly concern, but nevertheless:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IntelliJ IDEA does a great job at optimizing imports for you.
While
> >>>>>> doing
> >>>>>> so, it also insists in reorganizing them following some logic.
> >>>>>> Since it's not nice to have a patch dirtied by imports reordering
> >>>>>>every
> >>>>>> time a different person touches a class, it could be a good
idea to
> >>>>>> come up
> >>>>>> with a convention and configure our IDEs accordingly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Example (blank lines matter):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> org.apache.giraph.*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> org.*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> com.*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> javax.*
> >>>>>> java.*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or any variation you prefer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If there is agreement we can update the code conventions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alessandro
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message