Hi Scott, Hi Thomas, > Scott Eade wrote: > > How strongly do you guys feel about coding standards? Turbine has > > always had this: > > http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/common/code-standards.html but we > have > > a tonne of code that simply does not conform. > > I know, I tried to reformat stuff when it passed my way. Actually I *do* > care about coding standards, because they help the developer himself to > structurize his code and they help the community to understand each > other.
As long as opening Braces start on a new line, I do not really car. > > Corrective action has me in two minds also - we all most likely use > > IDE's that provide automated code formatting facilities, so it is not > > difficult to do, but on the other hand commits that do nothing but > > reformat code are a hassle when it comes to reviewing changes to code > > over time (IDE compare options that ignore whitespace changes go some > of > > the way, but we do not always look at this via an IDE). > > Reformatting is a matter of a mouse click in Eclipse, you know. Maybe we > can combine this with the re-licensing, where we need to touch all files > anyway. However there will still be a lot of JavaDocs missing and/or > wrong, especially in the Fulcrum code base. Since I volunteered in updating the headers, and I have the formatting rules ready, I will do all o fit in one swoosh. (Thomas, do you mind if we just quickly echange the eclipse configurations of code formatting rules, just so we both have the same ruleset? If you agree, I will send you mine later today) > > I guess my overriding consideration has to date been that contributors > > would be discouraged by a bunch of "please reformat your code" posts - > > hell, we need all the contributions we can get. > > I understand your point and I agree with you here, for the time being. > But remember, the above-mentioned coding style is widespread *and* is > known by the name of our project, it's "Turbine Coding Style". So that > we, of all people, should be the first to adhere to it. > > > So does anybody feel strongly about this or should we just continue as > > we are now and just be happy to receive the commits? If we were going > > to try to adhere to them more closely I would certainly want to review > > the 80 character line length standard - my monitors and printer can > deal > > with just so much more. > > -0.5 on the line length issue. I like to use screen real estate for > context information, for example. My editor window usually takes only > half of the screen width. I would be +1 here, since I am using Fast Views for the Package Explorer, which gives me more space for the editor ;) and makes long statements easier to read. Kind regards Juergen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
