Re: MQTT Streamer Code Style and Javadoc fixes (IGNITE-1747)

[Denis Magda]

Raul,

It wasn't easy for me to get into the way of following Ignite coding 
guidelines. So you're not alone :)

However one day I found "ignite/idea/ignite_codeStyle.xml" file and set 
it in Intellij IDEA settings. Since that time coding guidelines has 
never worried me again. Probably this will help you as well.


--
Denis

On 10/22/2015 10:50 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
Raul,

Thanks for your contribution!

I want to address the coding guidelines comments, as they keep coming up
again and again. I do agree that coding guidelines may not be ideal, and
may seem redundant at times. However, they make Ignite code look
consistent. If you try to change them now, even if it seems in a better
direction, the overall impact on the code will be negative, as the old code
will remain inconsistent with new one.

I am also noticing that every discussion about coding guidelines is about a
matter of taste. We will never all agree on the taste, so my preference
would be just to follow the guidelines as they are.

I also think that we should relax the coding guidelines for the
contributors (non-committers) as long as they get fixed by the committer
who does the final merge. This will make contributions easier (I will start
a separate thread about it).

D.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org> wrote:

Hi Yakov,

Thanks for the review.

Comments inline.

Aside from them: being honest, do you think Javadoc like the following
snippets are useful and provide any value? More so in a test case...

Snippet #1:

     /**
      * @param topics Topics.
      * @param fromIdx From index.
      * @param cnt Count.
      * @param singleMsg Single message flag.
      * @throws MqttException If failed.
      */

Snippet #2:

     /**
      * @throws Exception If failed.
      */

To me, they are redundant. And I'm concerned about imposing superfluous
Javadoc "just because", or due to aesthetics, rather than value.

Regards,

*Raúl Kripalani*
PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and
Messaging Engineer
http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>
wrote:

Hi Raul!

Thank you very much for addressing my comments!

I like the code however there are still a couple of points (I committed
everything to ignite-1747):

1. Please take a look at


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-StringOutput


Yeah, I'm familiar with this rule and I thought I was complying with it.
Could you give me an example where the code is not compliant?


2. org.apache.ignite.stream.mqtt.MqttStreamer#connected - volatile write
then read of most likely the same value - I changed it to return true
literal.
connected = true;
return connected;

Agree.


3. blockUntilConnected - I would name this property syncConn

Why? To me "blockUntilConnected" is clearer and more explicit than
"syncConn", which sounds mystic to an ordinary user who's not familiar with
the community's abbreviation table. It's ok for a private member, but not
for a property. In fact, syncConn requires the user to have the Javadoc
handy, blockUntilConnected doesn't. So I prefer the latter.


4. Abbreviation rules violations - connected - conn, executor - exec,
values - vals, count - cnt, message - msg

Ok, this is a rule... yeah. But you can imagine it's extremely hard to
memorise someone else's glossary. In my opinion, abbreviations should be
used only when needed, not by default. An abbreviation subtracts
readability for the general user – long-term Ignite developers are probably
used to these by now.


5. What is the point of "connected" member? Client has "isConnected()"?
Is
it similar to what you want to achieve?

I'll look at the implementation of MqttClient.isConnected(), but off the
top of my head, it seems it could be replaced, yes.


6. Race on stop - 1 thread calls stop and successfully exits the method,
retrier is not stopped (awaitTermination has not been called - should it
be?) and can connect client back - is this the case?

I'll have a look.


7. I think we use {@code } instead of <tt>...

Correct. Thanks.

On more point community should agree on  - imports ordering and grouping. I
will post another email.

This was already added a few weeks ago in the Coding rules.


--Yakov

2015-10-20 20:39 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org>:

Hi Yakov,

I've had a few free cycles to fix the code style and Javadoc issues you
reported in the MQTT Streamer and I've pushed my changes to branch
ignite-1747.

Would you mind having a look to see if it adapts better now?

Thanks,

*Raúl Kripalani*
PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data
and
Messaging Engineer
http://about.me/raulkripalani |
http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk