ZooKeeper lists had this suggestion not too long ago as well, and I thought you may want to read it (generally): http://search-hadoop.com/m/V5rEj26dhec1
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 <d...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> +1 on Lars's comment. >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:00 AM, lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> >> 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 <lakshman...@huawei.com> >> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org >> > 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 >> > >> -- Harsh J
