I'm building a PR [1] right now as a sort of "think-piece" to give us something
concrete to look at. I'm building it up out of ONLY things that Eclipse/javac
can determine are definitely impossible to execute or redundant or never used,
including:
- Private methods that are never used.
- Superinterfaces that don't need declaration.
- Fields that are never used.
- Checked exceptions that cannot be thrown.
and so far, I'm at about 11,000 lines to delete, which is… a good many.
Certainly too many to believe that all are really totally dead stuff that
should be gone. {grin} As you point out, some portion of this is stuff that we
wouldn't want to lose. My hope is that we can look over this PR and develop
some tickets for the kinds of things to which you refer ("e.g. features that
didn't make it into SPARQL") and insert some TODOs and so forth. And maybe we
can use it as a starting place for actual pruning. I'll send the PR sometime
tomorrow.
[1] https://github.com/ajs6f/jena/tree/KillDeadThings
---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library
On May 7, 2015, at 7:07 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 to removing dead code though what is "dead" is tricky. In arq and tdb
> there was some but they included code that is a useful record (e.g. features
> that didn't make it into SPARQL). I removed obvious junk. Some is checking
> code that I'd like to leave.
>
> I had a look - a regex of "if *\( *false *\)" but I didn't find much in core
> (just 2)
>
> "if(false)" requires the compiler to generate no code and "final boolean" but
> in Java8, does that include effectively final?
>
> What were you looking for?
>
> I tend to agree that the use of a field makes things worse.
>
> Andy
>
> On 07/05/15 19:24, Stephen Allen wrote:
>> I'd say just eliminate all of that dead code. Also any commented code as
>> well. We have a source control system, one can always look into the
>> history to get that stuff. Using a field just makes it worse IMO... it'll
>> never get removed if we do that.
>>
>> -Stephen
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:26 AM, A. Soroka <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> There are a goodly number of pieces (>150) of "dead code" in Jena, of the
>>> form:
>>>
>>> org.apache.jena.mem.HashCommon:
>>>
>>> void showkeys()
>>> {
>>> if (false)
>>> {
>>> System.err.print( ">> KEYS:" );
>>> // some logging code
>>> System.err.println();
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> If I understand this rightly, these are cases where we want to keep some
>>> code "on deck" for potential use. I'd like to suggest that many of these
>>> guys might be rewritten with a field or fields in the class, something like:
>>>
>>> boolean useLoggingCode = false;
>>>
>>> void showkeys()
>>> {
>>> if (useLoggingCode)
>>> etc.
>>> }
>>>
>>> This would make things a bit clearer and clean out a bunch of compiler
>>> warnings.
>>>
>>> Does this sound like a good approach? Worth doing?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> A. Soroka
>>> The University of Virginia Library
>>>
>>>
>>
>
