OK, I can work with that. Does the style guide allow for cleaning up this bit?
if (name
==
org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::GenerateFlowFile::ProcessorName) {
processor = std::make_shared<
org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::GenerateFlowFile>(name, uuid);
} else if (name
== org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::LogAttribute::ProcessorName) {
processor = std::make_shared<
org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::LogAttribute>(name, uuid);
} else if (name
== org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::GetFile::ProcessorName) {
processor =
std::make_shared<org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::GetFile>(name,
uuid);
} else if (name
== org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::PutFile::ProcessorName) {
processor =
std::make_shared<org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::PutFile>(name,
uuid);
} else if (name
== org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::TailFile::ProcessorName) {
processor =
std::make_shared<org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::TailFile>(name,
uuid);
} else if (name
== org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::ListenSyslog::ProcessorName) {
processor = std::make_shared<
org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::ListenSyslog>(name, uuid);
} else if (name
== org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::ListenHTTP::ProcessorName) {
processor = std::make_shared<
org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::ListenHTTP>(name, uuid);
} else if (name
== org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::InvokeHTTP::ProcessorName) {
processor = std::make_shared<
org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::InvokeHTTP>(name, uuid);
} else if (name
== org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::ExecuteProcess::ProcessorName) {
processor = std::make_shared<
org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::ExecuteProcess>(name, uuid);
} else if (name
== org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::AppendHostInfo::ProcessorName) {
processor = std::make_shared<
org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::AppendHostInfo>(name, uuid);
} else {
logger_->log_error("No Processor defined for %s", name.c_str());
return nullptr;
}
It seems very excessive to continually repeat
org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors. It looks like the style guide may allow
something like this?
namespace processors = org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors;
Is that correct?
-Andy
________________________________________
From: Kevin Doran <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:49:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MiNiFi CPP indentation confusion (Re: MINIFI-244)
Hi Andy,
I’ll let a minify-cpp veteran jump in if I have this wrong, but I believe we
are following the Google C++ Style Guide [1]. As it is my first time following
this style, it caused me to do a double take as well :-)
The Google C++ Style Guide does specify entries under public, protected, and
private sections are indented one space [2]
[1] https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html
[2] https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Class_Format
-- Kevin
On 5/2/17, 10:35, "Andrew Christianson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On closer inspection, it looks like just the public/private/etc. specifiers
are single-space indented, with the rest being two-spaces. Is this intentional?
________________________________________
From: Andrew Christianson
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:33:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: MiNiFi CPP indentation confusion (Re: MINIFI-244)
Working on merging my code for MINIFI-244 with the latest refactoring where
all of the classes have been put into nested namespaces. Looking at sibling
files, it looks like several of them are indented with one space. This
surprises me. What's the preferred indentation/code style? Two spaces? This
would be a first for me if we're actually going for single-space indentation.
Regards,
Andy
