maybe we should apply some code style conventions during maven build...
also ... I personal don't like some *old school* doings like:
private String _foo;
public void setFoo(String foo)
{
_foo = foo;
}
no need for "_" ...
I was discussion things like that with Bernd last days.
-Matthias
On 2/17/06, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I think that it is better to follow some convention. In my case,
> I never use public in interfaces (to me it looks like using abstract)
> ;-)
>
> Bruno
>
> On 2/16/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If nothing else, including "public" (and excluding
> > > "abstract") makes it easier to cut-and-paste from an
> > > interface into a class implementing the interface.
> >
> > hehe.
> >
> > Anyway, we should make it clear, which kind of *convention* we use.
> >
> > the "sun check-style" is against, using public in interfaces AFAIK.
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/15/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hmm...
> > > >
> > > > I never use public in interfaces - and with IntelliJ, you can even
> > > > change the settings so that you get a warning on that.
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK, it's supposed to be good code style to leave those public
> > > > modifiers out, but don't ask me where I've read this. Reading too much
> > > > these days ;)
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 2/15/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Yup. We also use the optional { } around if else statements in this
> > > > > project for similar reasons.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sean
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/15/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 12:31 -0500, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/15/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > there is no need to say "public" inside of interface
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > each method defined is public and abstract
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > same for constants.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "public static final" is not needed
> > > > > > > > all constants are
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > public static final String x = "x";
> > > > > > > > same as
> > > > > > > > String x = "x";
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks. I suspected it might be something like that, but I'd
> > > > > > > never
> > > > > > > seen it done that way before, and wanted to make sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's why I typically use "public" and "static" keywords in
> > > > > > interfaces
> > > > > > anyway; not everyone is aware of these interface features. It
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > make the bytecode any larger, and cannot be misunderstood...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > >
> > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > > Courses in English and German
> > > >
> > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
> > 50674 Köln
> > http://www.wessendorf.net
> > mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
50674 Köln
http://www.wessendorf.net
mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
