Denis wrote:

> If yes, we should just make these changes now. I actually
> wanted to make them, but didn't find a way to edit the page even after I 
> logged
> in. Is the page somehow locked for editing?

Ah, I overlooked that part of your message.

What made you think you could just log-in somewhere and start editing :)?
As with Gerrit, you need to be assigned a certain role (“Author” in this case).
Which is what I did by now.
Please log in and beautify our documentation.

Cheers,
Franz

PS: “Hey, I want to help make the Saros website better, too!” – Sure, no 
problem.
If you’re with Freie Universität Berlin, you can use your ZEDAT credentials (as 
Denis did), but I need to add you to the “Author” group after your first login.
Otherwise, drop me (or Holger Schmeisky) a line, and we will add you manually.

From: Matthias Bohnstedt [mailto:matthias.bohnst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:39 PM
To: Denis Washington <de...@denisw.de>
Cc: dpp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [DPP-Devel] Coding Conventions <==> Practice

I personalty thought this was more or less finished (as the use of the 
code-conventions are indeed interesting ;-)

but instead of silently agreeing to your suggestion Denis - I vote to keep the 
@blocking and @nonblocking tags in our conventions and get rid of all others. I 
personally think, that it is not so clear when to use @nonblocking (just 
judging by it's tag name - as Stefan mentioned, "nonblocking" is what you would 
expect from a method, if not mentioned otherwise).

The idea of including the documentation into our review is quite nice btw. Who 
want's to do it :-P - maybe a topic on the theses page?

PS: I can edit this page Denis, so I don't know what is the reason why you 
can't - but it's certainly not "locked" for changes.  Did you use https?


2015-08-24 11:23 GMT+02:00 Denis Washington 
<de...@denisw.de<mailto:de...@denisw.de>>:
Denis Washington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Over time I have noticed several instances where things recommended in our
> Coding Conventions [1] are almost nowhere followed, or not  followed at all
> (anymore). The ones I found are:

This discussion has died out now, but do we still agree that the rules about the
"events" subpackage and the the *Adapter naming for abstract listener classes
should be removed? If yes, we should just make these changes now. I actually
wanted to make them, but didn't find a way to edit the page even after I logged
in. Is the page somehow locked for editing?

With regards to the tags, I propose that we either

* remove all the tags from the docs (and code)

* remove all tags except for @blocking and @nonblocking

and perhaps add a section about things that should be mentioned in the JavaDocs,
without formalizing them as JavaDoc tags (e.g. something like "If the method 
potentially
blocks for a long time, mention this in the JavaDoc comment").

Regards,
Denis

> * The conventions say that listeners should always reside in an "events"
>   subpackage of the package they logically belong to. However, this is
>   never done anywhere in the core, and also not in the IntelliJ plugin.
>   As Stefan noted [2], the only place still using that convention is the
>   UI part of the Eclipse plugin.
>
> * Empty abstract classes for listeners should be called FooAdapter according
>   to the conventions (like in the Java standard library), but seem to be
>   consistently called AbstractFooListener instead.
>
> * The conventions recommend several Javadoc tags such as @ui (must be
>   called from the UI thread), @threadsafe, and others. However, with the
>   exception of @nonblocking and @blocking, none are really used (several
>   not at all):
>
>   Tag           # Uses
>   --------------------
>   @blocking         28
>   @nonblocking      16
>   @swt               4
>   @caching           2
>   @swing             0
>   @nonReentrant      0
>   @threadsafe        0
>   @ui                0
>   @valueObject       0
>
>
> What to do about this? The pragmatic solution would be to just adapt the
> conventions to match the current practice in the code, rather than the other
> way around - that is, dropping mentions of unused tags, removing or altering
> rules that are nowhere followed, etc. What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Denis
>
> [1] http://www.saros-project.org/coderules
> [2] http://saros-build.imp.fu-
> berlin.de/gerrit/#/c/2807/3/de.fu_berlin.inf.dpp.core/src/de/fu_berlin/inf/dp<http://berlin.de/gerrit/#/c/2807/3/de.fu_berlin.inf.dpp.core/src/de/fu_berlin/inf/dp>
> p/editor/events/AbstractSharedEditorListener.java@1<mailto:p/editor/events/AbstractSharedEditorListener.java@1>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
DPP-Devel mailing list
DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
DPP-Devel mailing list
DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel

Reply via email to