May I suggest we don't static import classes unless it makes a real
difference in readability, but certainly, may I suggest we don't
static-import a single static method or field from a class? finding a
reference to it in the code becomes confusing because one expects the
method or field exists in the class itself, since it is unqualified.
I see a number of classes under .df.* that implement equals() but not hashCode()
As a matter of practice, better to not allocate a zero-length array.
Since one is the same as the next, makes sense to declare one as a
static field and reuse it. But certainly it can be entirely elided in
phrases like this:
URI[] files = new URI[0];
files = ...;
The allocation is completely superfluous.
This doesn't make sense when the args are ints:
Math.floor(numTrees / numMaps)
The result is already an int, rounded 'down'
StringBuffer has basically been replaced with StringBuilder since Java 5
No method should be declared 'throws Exception' except for special
cases like main()
An abstract class which defines only abstract methods should likely
just be an interface, for flexibility
C-style array declarations work in Java but are not used -- int foo[]
should be int[] foo
Standard modifier ordering in Java is like 'public static final'
In a line like this, the 'new URI[]' is redundant
URI[] foo = new URI[] { something };
Lines like 'foo = foo % 10' may be improved to 'foo %= 10'
