lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:30:02 GMT
Prescott - we could make an RC and push it to Nuget as a PreRelease, to get
real feedback.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:

> I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a
> terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy
> consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say
> monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
>
>
> > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
> >
> > this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
> >
> > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to
> double check.
>
> I'd error with consistency
>
>
> >
> > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
> >
> > blah vs. _blah
> >
>
> > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
> >
> > _blah = blah;
> >
>
>
> For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not
> CLR compliant
>
>
> > However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
> >
> > 3) Full qualification of type names.
> >
> > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or
> remove them?
> >
>
> I try to remove them
>
> > 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
> >
> > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come
> across so far are private.
> >
>
> I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never
> used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a
> conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there
> aren't too many of these..
>
> > 5) var vs. explicit
> >
> > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final
> disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
> >
>
> I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I
> usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that
> makes it unclear what the return value is:
>
>
> var items = search.GetResults();
>
> vs
>
> IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
>
>
> >
> > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like
> artifacts of code generation:
> >
> > 6) Weird param names.
> >
> > Param1 vs. directory
> >
> > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name
> like 'directory'.
> >
>
> Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a
> full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially
> break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and
> push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes,
> I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.
>
> > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
> >
> > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It
> feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go
> back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much
> more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do
> that.
> >
>
> I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java
> version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we
> have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.
>
>
>
> > If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the
> documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate
> the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are
> willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
> >
>
> I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that
> conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for us
> to build rules though.
>
> > - Zack
> >
> >
> > On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> >
> > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and
> trying
> > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly,
> removing
> > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> > >
> > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some
> recent
> > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit
> more
> > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
> >
>

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