On 30 août 2011, at 15:32, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Hi guys,
Hi,
we just had a private convo with Pierre-Arnaud about coding rules. We are not
following exactly the same type of rules in Studio and in ADS, which is quite
normal. There are some reason why there is a divergence.
As we've seen in our private convo with Emmanuel, the divergence is very very subtle and
it's mostly a divergence on "unwritten" rules that we can't find in our coding
standards documentation...
The rest of rules are clearly well followed (except some very very old parts of
code that haven't been touch for years now).
I think we need to discuss a few things here.
Currently, we have a small coding standard page :
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DIRxDEV/Coding+standards
It's pretty simple, with not a lot of rules. Both ADS and Studio are more or
less following those rules which were established a long time ago (there are
still some very old files in ADS which are not following those rules, but with
more than 3000 files on the project, we won't spend one month reviewing all of
those files one by one...)
Same thing for Studio.
Some pretty old files may not be following *all* the rules.
I'd like to add a few more rules, at least for ADS, and suggest that Studio
keep a slightly different sets of rules, but in any case, I'd like to see all
the rules added to the wiki.
Here is what I think would be good for ADS :
- add a blank line before each 'if', 'for', 'do', 'switch', 'case' unless the
previous line is a '{'
In most cases I agree, but I find some cases where I prefer leaving the if
close to the previous expression.
Especially in cases where I get a variable and I want to test something on it
just after.
Here's an example:
// Testing variable
SomeType variable = anotherVariable.getVariable();
if ( variable.hasFlag() )
{
[...]
In that particular case, IMO, it helps grouping expressions for a better
readability.
- get rid of trinary operator ( expr ? op1 : op2 )
I would prefer keeping it as it's very handy for variable nullity checks.
Here's an example:
return ( ( variable == null ) ? "null" : variable );
I prefer the compact format instead of this:
if ( variable == null )
{
return "null";
}
else
{
return variable;
}
Now, if I'm the only one liking it, I will refrain myself from using it in the
future... ;)
- add a blank line before each 'return'
+1
- in if ( expr ), we should use '(' and ')' for expressions containing an '=='
or any other logical connector
+1
We also may want to add some rules for pom.xml.
+1
Even though I think we already share the same rules, having them written is
always a plus. Especially for newcomers.
Typically, what I'd like to see is a blank line between each element
like<dependency>. Here is an example :
<dependencies>
<!-- Apache Directory Studio library plugins dependencies -->
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.directory.shared</groupId>
<artifactId>shared-ldap-model</artifactId>
<scope>provided</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.directory.shared</groupId>
<artifactId>shared-util</artifactId>
<scope>provided</scope>
</dependency>
This is to separate all the items which have the same dame, for clarity sake.
Why not.
I liked the idea of grouping a set of dependencies under a common "label" like this
"Apache Directory Studio library plugins dependencies" in your example.
But adding a blank line doesn't really break either...
So, +1.
One more thing I'd like to add to pom.xml guidelines, I really like when
dependencies are ordered in alphabetical order.
In Studio, we deal with a lot of dependencies for each project (mostly Eclipse
dependencies + a few others) and having them ordered REALLY helps when looking
for something, IMO.
