jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Meschberger <Felix.Meschber...@day.com>
Subject Re: Checkstyle improvements
Date Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:43:22 GMT
Hi all,

Just my €.02 on this ..

Jukka Zitting schrieb:

>We already discussed one issue related to inline conditionals in
>private. Checkstyle suggests to avoid all inline conditionals, but
>especially in some equals() methods they are very handy.
>  
>
I personally like inline conditionals very much because they look a lot 
less cumbersome than the equivalent if-else statement.

>Another, more essential issue is related to the use of protected member
>variables. Checkstyle currently reports 161 protected member variables
>in Jackrabbit. The canonical suggestion is to make the variables private
>and provide accessor methods as needed. Should Jackrabbit follow this
>guideline or should we simply disable the related Checkstyle check?
>  
>
I would vote +1 for private fields with protected accessors. It provides 
better encapsulation and future-proofness. Generally I like accessors a 
lot more than public/protected fields.

>There are also some isolated issues like equals() methods without
>corresponding hashCode() methods and switch statements without default
>cases that might cause unexpected trouble in some situations.
>  
>
I would vote +1 for these to be fixed, especially the hashCode issues.

Regards,
Felix



Mime
View raw message