Oh, yeah -- Wiki page here once we've come to general agreement:
http://wiki.apache.org/beehive/CodingConventions
On 6/8/05, Eddie ONeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems right to me. Enumerating where we are right now:
>
> - follow Sun Java coding conventions except for:
>
> - line length of 100 or 120 characters
> - allow use of "_" for naming class-level variables
> - allow declaration before use of variables
> - use "todo" instead of "fixme"
> - nix the "I" naming convention
>
> What else?
>
>
>
> On 6/8/05, Richard Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree... we're amazingly close to agreement (compromise) here. The
> > only snag we've run into is the "I" prefix, and it sounds like we're OK
> > with *not* mandating it at this point. Beyond that, does anyone else
> > object to any of the other mods we've made (or to the whole idea)?
> >
> > Daryl Olander wrote:
> >
> > >I think we are pretty close to agreement, though we haven't heard from
> > >a lot of people. I think the biggest source of debate is code changes
> > >(like renaming interfaces and variables). This may be style, but
> > >there are code changes in public APIs that would be required to match
> > >this spec.
> > >
> > >On 6/8/05, Kyle Marvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>This whole thread is a good argument for why you should just use the
> > >>standard Sun/Java conventions without mods... I think you'll end up
> > >>in a long debate over the mods where no one is ever satisfied.
> > >>Coding conventions are just too much about style and thus, there is no
> > >>"right" or "wrong" to ground the debate.
> > >>
> > >>On 6/8/05, Eddie ONeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> The "I" naming convention is applied to only Java interfaces like:
> > >>>
> > >>> public interface IFoo {...}
> > >>>
> > >>>It's not meant to be used on abstract base classes -- which aren't
> > >>>interfaces -- just an API.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's really meant to make very obvious in code what is and is not an
> > >>>interface without having to consult the Javadoc.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>This seems somewhat dubious to me... when do I ever use a class or
> > >>interface _without_ consulting the Javadoc to know what it does? If
> > >>I am a casual user (i.e not subclassing a class or implementing the
> > >>interface, just interacting with an instance), I generally don't
> > >>really care whether it is a class or interface.
> > >>
> > >>Also, you can't go back and "fix" existing interfaces, lest you create
> > >>major back compat issues... so you are going to end up with
> > >>inconsistency anyway.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
