Re: svn commit: r1813637 - in /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/datafile/src/main/java/org/apache/of biz/datafile: DataFile.java DataFile2EntityXml.java ModelDataFileReader.java Record.java RecordIterator.java

[Michael Brohl]

Ah, I thought I have used the OFBiz formatter provided by the link you mentioned, I have it embedded in Eclipse.

But was wrong, it was the Eclipse default formatter. I changed it back now.





Regards,

Michael


Am 29.10.17 um 11:37 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:

I agree that we should all use the same formatting conventions to prevent having "changes" which are only produced by formatting. The attachment should be mentioned more prominently, as far as I can see it is only depicted by the small icon just below the headline. If we want to decide on a formatting style, best would be to have one which is most near to what we have in the codebase now, if possible, to avoid having too much changes in the future.

We (committers at least, with contributors would even be better) could decide to use the same formatter.

This would helps when merging from custom projects or backporting to them... I tried this once by sharing my Eclipse formatter at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpageattachments.action?pageId=7766027

Now that more people use InteliJ we could start from an Eclipse formatter

So we could decide on our own rules and get more legible and consistent formatting https://blog.jetbrains.com/idea/2014/01/intellij-idea-13-importing-code-formatter-settings-from-eclipse/

https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/6546-eclipse-code-formatter

It seems there is no other way around

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29226589/export-intellij-idea-code-formatting-rules-to-eclipse

Jacques


Le 29/10/2017 à 10:53, Michael Brohl a écrit :

Maybe ultimately using CheckStyle as suggested? I remember being rebuffed a decade abo when I suggested to use Findbugs... I'm not strongly opinionated about that, but when I think about external mergings...

I think this is just a formatting change becaused I used our formatter for Eclipse.

Not really something worth a discussion, is it?


Am 29.10.17 um 10:07 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:

Le 28/10/2017 à 16:45, mbr...@apache.org a écrit :

-        for (int i = 0; i < modelField.length; i++)
-            sb.append(PAD_CHAR);
-        data = sb.toString();
-        }
+                for (int i = 0; i < modelField.length; i++)
+                    sb.append(PAD_CHAR);
+                data = sb.toString();
+            }

Hi All,

I find this ambiguous. We have few options here:

1)
                for (int i = 0; i < modelField.length; i++)
                    sb.append(PAD_CHAR);

                data = sb.toString();

2)
                for (int i = 0; i < modelField.length; i++) {
                    sb.append(PAD_CHAR);
                }
                data = sb.toString();

3)

                data = sb.toString();

4)


                data = sb.toString();



Thanks

Jacques

                for (int i = 0; i < modelField.length; i++) sb.append(PAD_CHAR);                 for (int i = 0; i < modelField.length; i++) sb.append(PAD_CHAR); Which one do you prefer? Of course this should be a general rule, not only for this case!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature