I am in favor of 120. A balance between allowing longer lines, while keeping a sane limit. Also 100 is better than 80, so I would be fine with that.
Enis On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Dave Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on Lars's comment. > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:00 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Put me in the I-couldn't-care-less camp :) 80, 100, 120, or even no limit > > is fine with me. > > Would personally prefer no limit. Instead leave it up to the good taste > of > > the contributors and us committers to format the code in the most > readable > > way. > > > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Laxman <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:17 PM > > Subject: HBASE Code format > > > > Hi Devs, > > > > How about raising the "max line width" from 80 (to 100 or 120)? > > IMO, 80 characters length is too low & it makes the code bit ugly. > > > > Example: > > long timstamp = conf.getLong(TIMESTAMP_CONF_KEY, > > System.currentTimeMillis()); > > > > Above code snippet after formatting, it turned to > > > > long timstamp = conf > > .getLong(TIMESTAMP_CONF_KEY, System.currentTimeMillis()); > > > > Please respond with your opinion considering the following points. > > > > - Sun Java coding standards drafted in 1999 > > - Terminals(Monitors) we are using now are very wider and 80 characters > is > > not a valid limit anymore. > > - As per Ted, Google raised this limit > > [https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5564] > > > > Note: We don't need to reformat entire codebase. My proposal is to apply > > these standards to new code getting commited. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Laxman > > >
