hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paresh Yadav <pya...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: Code guidelines and bash
Date Sun, 27 Jul 2014 02:02:04 GMT
Hey Allen,

I am not a shell scripting expert but I have written few and used/seen many
from including top 3 enterprise software giants. I don't think everyone
sticks to 80 char guidelines, may be this is remnant of the old 80 char
terminals. I prefer long descriptive names for the env vars (or vars in
general) as it makes the program more readable. Not sure what are technical
ramifications of having lines longer than 80 char if any.

Paresh Yadav
Solutions Engineer, Canada

Phone:     416.688.1003
Email:      pyadav@hortonworks.com
Website:   http://www.hortonworks.com/

*Follow Us: *


[image: photo]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Allen Wittenauer <aw@apache.org> wrote:

> Hey folks:
>    Deep linked by http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/CodeReviewChecklist is the
> rule  that line length should be ideally maximum 80 chars.  (Sun coding
> guidelines.)  In general, it's a good idea and it works for many many
> languages...
>    Now the caveat.
>    As most of you know, I've been hacking on HADOOP-9902 off and on for a
> year now.   [For those that don't, this is an almost complete rewrite of
> most of the major shell code that we ship with Hadoop.  The stuff that was
> missed I'll pick it up after this gets committed.]   As part of this, I
> recently reformatted the last patch to fit that 80 character requirement as
> best I could.  The result is... not good.  Not good at all.  In many ways,
> it actually hurt readability even beyond the lack of indentation that Bash
> Beautifier doesn't support for line continuation. (That case statement in
> bin/hadoop is painful to look at and makes me cry.)
>    Barring anymore feedback, it's pretty much ready to commit. But before
> that happens, do we want to specify that bash has different line length
> requirements?  Say 120 chars?  Most of the problems stem from our usage of
> REALLY LONG env var names that can't really be changed at this point
> without *massively* screwing backward compatibility. (Hello,
> YARN_RESOURCEMANAGER_OPTS... I'm talking about you!).
>   Bouncing the idea around a few folks, they all seem to agree that 80 is
> just too hard for bash given our general use case, but I think it'd be good
> to have something official.
> Thoughts?
> Thanks.

NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
and delete it from your system. Thank You.

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