On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> I still don't understand what the hubub about unused imports is about. I think it's clean, but if a public report is made on code and shows somethign that is wrong with the code, then I'm happy to put the effort into fixing it. Especially if the report is going to be run periodically such that I'll be able to trust the report to keep the code honest in the future. If someone had an online report from Clover generating, I would happily do the same. I know Clover hooks into Maven, so hopefully I can get that running someday. > Tapestry is pretty clean of them, but even if it wasn't, I wouldn't say that > code quality suffered. I mean, there's some fractional difference in It helps to keep it neat mainly. Usage of import xx.* is far worse in my opionated view :) Especially for open-source projects that people will be reading the source of a lot. > compile speed I guess, and a tiny difference in code comprehension that is > completely eclipsed by decent comments and JavaDoc. There are other tools > out there that do a better job of analyzing the code itself for > deficiencies. Yep. But their creators don't come along to the list and provide people with the metric. > I'd much rather see folks working to create JUnit test suites and publishing > their code coverage results. Tapestry uses a framework called Clover, which > is free for open source projects and produces a pretty result (using > Velocity, btw). > > http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry/doc/clover/ > > I'm very proud of the 80% coverage (on 23K NCLOC, 23000 lines of code > excluding comments) and expect to push this to 90% before 2.4 GAs. Yeah, it's kicking around on my long list of "Things to learn". Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
