Either way for * imports is fine (alphabetical order I presume). Static imports at the bottom is also okay if that's what is possible in certain IDEs.
-- Chetan On Tuesday, September 29, 2015, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected]> wrote: > I would go with * imports after com.* otherwise the other points you > mention are fine. I agree with the point that it is not possible to bunch > static with their groups in IntelliJ, if it did it would be great. I prefer > them at the bottom. > > Thanks > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Chandni Singh <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > I see a difference between your suggestion and Chetan's import order. > > > > com.datatorrent.* is always the lowest one and I think static imports are > > not at the bottom in Chetan's. Static imports for each group are present > > below that group. His order is something like: > > > > com.* imports > > > > org.* imports > > > > org.apache.* imports > > > > * imports > > > > com.* > > > > com.datatorrent.* imports > > > > Chetan please confirm. > > > > About static imports I think it should be either top or bottom because it > > is quite difficult to configure the in-flow order with eclipse/intellij. > > > > Chandni > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > I prefer the following order which I borrowed from Chetan a while back > > > > > > all java/javax imports > > > > > > com.* imports > > > > > > org.* imports > > > > > > org.apache.* imports > > > > > > com.datatorrent.* imports > > > > > > * imports > > > > > > all static imports > > > > > > The rationale is as you go down the list you have more > > control/flexibility > > > on names for what you want to include. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Chandni Singh < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > If you have issues with the current import order, please respond to > > this > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > I don't have any strong opinions on the order of static and 3rd party > > > > library imports because I seldom refer to imports and to me in this > > case > > > > only consistency is of utmost importance. > > > > > > > > If ordering of imports or placement of static imports are very > > important > > > to > > > > you then please respond here. > > > > > > > > Also Checkstyle is mature enough to handle different styles of import > > > > placement so we don't need more plugins to achieve this. > > > > > > > > We need to reach on a consensus soon so that already merged > checkstyle > > > rule > > > > can be modified. > > > > > > > > Chandni > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Chandni Singh < > > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Following is the import order: > > > > > > > > > > The import order is following: > > > > > > > > > > all static imports > > > > > > > > > > all java/javax imports > > > > > > > > > > org.* imports > > > > > > > > > > com.* imports > > > > > > > > > > * imports > > > > > > > > > > com.datatorrent.* imports > > > > > > > > > > Each group is lexicographically sorted and separated by an empty > > line. > > > > > Please configure your IDEs to do so. > > > > > > > > > > I am working on APEX-151 < > > https://malhar.atlassian.net/browse/APEX-151 > > > > > > > > meanwhile > > > > > to provide settings for commonly used IDEs. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Chandni > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
