Prasanna, I don't think a small namespace will deliver much value. We are responsible for maintaining the code base -- even the older code that will eventually be replaced. I would prefer to start with a smaller set of rules focused on high priority issues (e.g. lack of proper equals, hashCode, and toString implementations), fix them across the entire codebase, and then expand the rule set. Wash, rinse, repeat until we have a complete rule set and a compliant code base.
Thanks, -John On Jun 29, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:45:02PM -0400, John Burwell wrote: >> Prasanna, >> >> I am all for static analysis, but I think we should discuss it before >> implementation to ensure that the community is in sync on the rules >> and priority. I am of the belief that static analysis shouldn't check >> for violations that we don't are worthy of breaking a build. However, >> implementing such an approach would take a fair amount if coordination >> and effort for (needed) cleanup. > > Sure - we can start with a small namespace, say > org.apache.cloudstack.storage, and extend the envelope based on > discussions. Makes sense? > >> >> That's my $0.02, >> -John >> > -- > Prasanna., > > ------------------------ > Powered by BigRock.com >
