Hi devs,
while examining the Checkstyle and JavaDoc complaints I
got a few more questions about the FOP style:
1. There is still quite a bit of hungarian notation here and
 there. Hungarian notation generally sucks unless it is
 consistently applied. Furthermore, it is systems hungarian
 (see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html),
 which unconditionally sucks.
 And yes, we do already have an "int bFooFlag".
 I'd like to exterminate this.
2. There are two different styles for constructors and setters
 in use:
   Constructor(int foo) {
     this.foo=foo
   }
 and
   Constructor(int f) {
     foo=f
   }
 We should standardize on one form. I'd like the first because
 the second may have the undesirable effect of using unintuitive
 abbreviations or alternative names for the parameter.
 I told Checkstyle laready to accept the first form (there are
 *lots* of warnings about it). Unfortunately, Checkstyle can't yet
 enforce it.
3. We have too much weird abbreviations everywhere. In particular,
 usage of abbreviations is wildly inconsistent. I'd like to
 remind everyone that using proper words to compose identifiers
 has advantages. With the autocompletion features of modern IDEs,
 long identifiers shouldn't impair typing too much.
 I'll probably expand randomly choosen names in the future, which
 may include class names. Tell me now if you don't like this.

Regards
J.Pietschmann

Reply via email to