hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Dever <jsde...@sympatico.ca>
Subject Re: [HttpClient] Proposed style change
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:45:57 GMT
Ah ha!  I knew that this was going to come up, and I'm somewhat prepared.

Both of your suggestions do have precedent in other Jakarta projects.  I 
am open to the idea of having a coding standard specific to HttpClient. 
 It is our right to have our own coding standard, if we so choose.  
Perhaps after some research, and discussion, we could propose a vote on 
a number of vaiations to the coding guidelines.  The only restriction 
that I would put is that every particular style variation proposed as a 
concrete change to the checkstyle.properties file that is now in our 

I also expect some input from the commons proper guys.

Some other resources to consider:


So talk about your suggestions, and post some precise proposals and I'll 
get them all togehter at the end of the week and we'll have a vote.  (we 
should hold off on any style specific patches untill this is sorted out)


Mike Bowler wrote:

> I am going through the code and changing it to conform to the style as 
> per checkstyle.  There are two places that I think we may want to be a 
> little more lenient than the defaults and so I'm putting them here for 
> discussion.
> 1) Line length of 80
> The number 80 originally came from the days when printers could only 
> print 80 columns.  These days, that number doesn't make nearly as much 
> sense.  While I think we still want to have a maximum length, I 
> believe that 80 is too short.
> In most of the places that we are exceeding the limit, we are just 
> over by a bit (between 80 and 90).  I propose that we change the max 
> length to 100.  This is still short enough that nobody should have to 
> scroll to see the source but long enough that we aren't artificially 
> breaking lines.
> 2) Instance variable names
> Some of the code uses leading underscores for variable names but this 
> isn't allowed by checkstyle.  The pattern it checks for is 
> ^[a-z][a-zA-Z0-9]*$
> I find significant benefit to being able to quickly distinguish 
> instance variables from local variables and the leading underscore 
> lets me do that easily.  (I personally prefer trailing underscores to 
> leading ones but I can live with either)
> I propose that we change the pattern for instance variables to 
> ^_?[a-z][a-zA-Z0-9]*$ so that we will allow leading underscores but 
> will not insist on it.
> Comments?

View raw message