Vincent,
2009/9/29 Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com>: > I started to write my own checkstyle configuration from scratch some > time ago, enabling everything that looked important to me. But I’d like > to test it a bit more before submitting it. Same here. See the checkstyle file for JEuclid as an example. http://jeuclid.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/jeuclid/jeuclid/file/tip/support/build-tools/src/main/resources/jeuclid/checkstyle.xml > Speaking of that, there’s a rule that I would suggest to disable: the > HiddenFieldCheck. I don’t really see its benefit. It forces to find > somewhat artificial names for variables, where the field name is exactly > what I want. Sometimes a method doesn’t have a name following the > setField pattern, yet still acts as a setter for Field. This rule would > make sense if we were using a Hungarian-like notation for variables > (mMember, pParam, etc.), but that’s not the case in FOP. > WDYT? I like the rule, BUT I am ok with an exception for setters and constructors (this is IMO a new option in checkstyle 5): http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_coding.html#HiddenField Max
