Hi Max, > > 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
The exclusion of constructors an setters is important. Otherwise we would be forced to use some Hungarian-like scope notation. But why do you think, that this rule is useful at all? Best Regards Alex
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
