feel free to do this, but for trunk only. i would rather not tweak working code for the sake of making it "cleaner".
also for this specific example there is Streams.close() that does this already... -igor On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:26 AM, nino martinez wael <[email protected]> wrote: > Well I do think there are some places that where code are somewhat > unreadable or hard to read. So it was just to make the code more > readable.. And making maintenance time go down. So some of it would be > following up against rule violations, but some of it would also be > tidying up code like this (from fileupload.java on 1.4.x branch), and > it can be further reduced below are just example: > > [original] > public final void closeStreams() > { > if (inputStreamsToClose != null) > { > for (Iterator<InputStream> inputStreamsIterator = > inputStreamsToClose.iterator(); inputStreamsIterator.hasNext();) > { > InputStream inputStream = > inputStreamsIterator.next(); > > try > { > inputStream.close(); > } > catch (IOException e) > { > // We don't care aobut the exceptions > thrown here. > } > } > > // Reset the list > inputStreamsToClose = null; > } > } > [modified] > public final void closeStreams() > { > if (inputStreamsToClose != null) > { > for (Iterator<InputStream> inputStreamsIterator = > inputStreamsToClose.iterator(); inputStreamsIterator.hasNext();) > { > closeInputStream(inputStreamsIterator.next()); > } > > // Reset the list > inputStreamsToClose = null; > } > } > > private void closeInputStream(InputStream inputStream){ > try > { > inputStream.close(); > } > catch (IOException e) > { > // We don't care aobut the exceptions > thrown here. > } > > } > > It's up to you guys, it's defiantly not an easy task. Im just > following the example from Robert C Martin > (http://www.amazon.com/Clean-Code-Handbook-Software-Craftsmanship/dp/0132350882) > ... In my daily work I've found it to be a very good practice. > > > > 2010/3/23 Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]>: >> lets not start tweaking code for tweaking's sake. >> >> -igor >> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:57 AM, nino martinez wael >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Yeah I know, one has to have a sense of code regarding some of those >>> violations. But are very good to have as an indicator, at work I've >>> removed some of the rules from the rule set as they do not fit our >>> programming style. We value code readability very high, although it's >>> a constant battle between developers. >>> >>> Regarding reading code is a completely different matter. When I see >>> something like "!foo", I just read it "not foo". You can miss the >>> exclamation, but you can also miss one equal sign and have a fatal >>> problem. >>> >>> One of the most annoying ones are if you create something serializable >>> you also have to declare an id. Another one are that eclipse by >>> default generates methods that are pulled to an interface abstract, >>> but one of the rules says it's duplicate signature since it's an >>> interface :) So theres a secret battle between eclipse and the >>> ruleset.. >>> >>> But most of the are good. >>> >>> regards Nino >>> >>> 2010/3/23 Jeremy Thomerson <[email protected]>: >>>> I would reject patchs to fix some of those. Some of those so-called >>>> "violations" are just their coding style not being the same as ours. >>>> >>>> For instance, they say there are 218 "violations" where we have 'if (foo == >>>> false)' - which they say should be simplified, I'm assuming to be 'if >>>> (!foo)'. Personally, I write mine as "foo == false" because it is much >>>> harder to miss that than it is to miss "!" as you're reading through the >>>> code. >>>> >>>> Another example: "empty method in abstract class should be abstract". No, >>>> it shouldn't. It's a method designed to be overridden for additional >>>> functionality if you so desire. >>>> >>>> There might be some that are worth fixing. But as I mention, there are >>>> some >>>> that are better left alone. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeremy Thomerson >>>> http://www.wickettraining.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:39 AM, nino martinez wael < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi I wondered >>>>> >>>>> if it would be interesting if I started to make wicket more in >>>>> compliance with the rules defined here: >>>>> http://nemo.sonarsource.org/drilldown/violations/44196?priority=MAJOR >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> I'd of course start by submitting patches.. >>>>> >>>>> So are it interesting? >>>>> >>>>> regards Nino >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
