Ceki,
I am not a Jalopy expert, but it appears to me that Jalopy always modifies files, even if they have already been previously formatted by Jalopy and exactly match the original. So, they will appear as modified to cvs until you do an update and it sees they are the same.
No, I really mean different. cvs diff file will actually output something meaningful.
We are not enforcing the use of Jalopy, so it is just a tool we can use to get the source "into shape". I haven't had a chance to work on it with the plugin stuff (or the filter stuff on the sandbox side) and I was too chicken to apply Paul's checkstyle patches for the Chainsaw files. But, I think we might want to spend some time running Jalopy and Checkstyle on all the sources, and get it over with. Maybe if we all took responsibility for a package or two...? I'd eventually like to see Checkstyle become part of the compile task, alerting us when we format the code outside the chosen coding conventions. Then we would only need to run Jalopy occasionally for new or submitted code.
I have started using Eclipse for which there is a Jalopy plugin. For the time being, I really like the way it works. It takes about 1 click to format a file. Moreover, the results are quite satisfactory. BTW, I very much like your Apache header trick.
I see you updated the coding convention settings. What do you think of the generated format? Any other settings we should look into modifying?
It looks good to me although I have not looked at it every nook and cranny.
I have also installed a checkstyle plugin into Eclipse, Unfortunately, I get over 20'000 warnings over log4j source code which renders the tool very much impractical to use. Moreover, I do not see a problem with a large number of the generated warnings. There are probably ways to suppress some of the warnings but I am not familiar enough with Checkstyle to implement the desired customization. To be brutally honest, for the time being I am much more comfortable with applying Jalopy per file or per batch in lieu of battling with gazillions of checkstyle errors. Anyway, I'll battle some more to see if things improve.
-Mark
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Applying Jalopy? > > > > Hi all, > > I have updated my local files from our CVS rep and then set > up and ran > jalopy with the following command: > > LOG4J_HOME/ > ant runJalopy > This resulted in a message stating that Jalopy was run on 24 > (or so) files. > > I then ran CVS update: > > LOG4J_HOME/ > cvs up > > [snip] > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/ChainsawAppender.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/ChainsawViewer.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/DefaultViewer.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/DetailPanel.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/LoadXMLAction.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/Log4JConfigurationFinder.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/Main.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/MyTableColumnModel.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/MyTableModel.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/PreferencesDialog.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/RecentFilesMenu.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/Start.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/XMLFileHandler.java > [snip] > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/plugins/Plugin.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/plugins/PluginRegistry.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/plugins/PluginSkeleton.java > M src/java/org/apache/log4j/plugins/Receiver.java > [snip] > > Thus, running jalopy seemed to have modified a number of > files. Diffing on > src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/ChainsawAppender.java > showed that japoly > made some formatting changes. > Diffing on src/java/org/apache/log4j/plugins/Plugin.java showed the > addition of the Apache license at the top plus minor > formatting changes. > Similarly for the other files. > > I am assuming that the latest commits did not go through > japoly? If not, > was that because of involuntary omission or on the contrary > deliberate? I > am just trying to understand and catch up. > > -- > > Ceki > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
--
Ceki
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
