Franz Zieris wrote: > 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.
I have taken the opportunity to remove the two unfollowed rules we talked about (*Adapter as abstract listener class name, "events" subpackage) from the Coding Conventions page. I didn't change anything in the JavaDoc Tags section yet, though, because I don't think we came to a conclusion about that issue. Regards, Denis 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: > > * 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 > p/editor/events/AbstractSharedEditorListener.java@1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ DPP-Devel mailing list DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel
