You heretic, Yoav! I like this approach, as it greatly simplifies this entire discussion.
And I would be very interested those jalopy ant tasks. Using it would make it much easier to fix up individual packages as we go. -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 5:54 AM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: RE: checkstyle.properties? > > > Howdy, > I'll chime in with my 2 cents (US) but I know I might get some flak ;) > > - Leave the checkstyle properties empty (except for baseDir > if we want, > since that has nothing to do with style checking), to check for the > standard Sun Java Coding Conventions. > - This will result in many (expect ~500 per average size .java file) > thousands of checkstyle errors reported. > - Treat conformance to the Sun Java Coding Conventions as a long-term > gradual effort. Re-run checkstyle periodically (at least once before > every stable release) to see the error count drop down. > There's no need > to go class by class and fix every little whitespace error at once. > > Checkstyle errors are not terrible things to have. Having > the reporting > mechanism in place shows log4j's commitment to good style. > Having some > unique (read: non-standard) set of checkstyle conventions slightly > reduces the strength of the "we're using checkstyle to check > ourselves" > statement. > > And on this topic, it's been my experience that using a formatter > (Jalopy is my current favorite: http://jalopy.sourceforge.net/) in > conjunction with checkstyle eliminate about 80% of the checkstyle > reported error right away, with no human effort. I can contribute Ant > tasks to run jalopy on log4j classes if desired. > > Yoav Shapira > Millennium ChemInformatics > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:16 AM > >To: Log4J Developers List > >Subject: RE: checkstyle.properties? > > > >I checked in an updated checkstyle target, but the list of properties > is > >not > >complete. I am going to look at what some other projects have done. > If > >anyone has an opinion, now is the time. > > > >-Mark > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 6:05 AM > >> To: Log4J Developers List > >> Subject: RE: checkstyle.properties? > >> > >> > >> Howdy, > >> > >> >BUT, the 2.4 version of checkstyle has a completely different ant > task, > >> and > >> >does need a properties file. :-) I converted the old ant task to > the > >> new > >> >one: > >> > >> Small side note: I prefer to specify the properties inside the Ant > file, > >> not in a separate file. I use CheckStyle 2.4 from Ant as well, it > lokos > >> something like this: > >> <checkstyle failOnViolation="false"> > >> <property key="checkstyle.wrap.operator" value="ignore" /> > >> ... > >> <fileset dir="${srcDir}"> > >> <include name="**/*.java" /> > >> </fileset> > >> > >> <formatter type="xml" toFile="${checkStyleReportFile}" /> > >> </checkstyle> > >> > >> Yoav Shapira > >> Millennium ChemInformatics > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
