hanm commented on a change in pull request #1049: ZOOKEEPER-3475 Enable 
Checkstyle configuration on zookeeper-server
URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1049#discussion_r313153091
 
 

 ##########
 File path: 
zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/QuorumCnxManager.java
 ##########
 @@ -202,78 +201,81 @@
             }
         }
 
-        static public InitialMessage parse(Long protocolVersion, 
DataInputStream din)
-            throws InitialMessageException, IOException {
+        public static InitialMessage parse(
+                Long protocolVersion,
+                DataInputStream din
+        ) throws InitialMessageException, IOException {
             Long sid;
 
             if (protocolVersion != PROTOCOL_VERSION) {
-                throw new InitialMessageException(
-                        "Got unrecognized protocol version %s", 
protocolVersion);
+                throw new InitialMessageException("Got unrecognized protocol 
version %s", protocolVersion);
             }
 
             sid = din.readLong();
 
             int remaining = din.readInt();
             if (remaining <= 0 || remaining > maxBuffer) {
-                throw new InitialMessageException(
-                        "Unreasonable buffer length: %s", remaining);
+                throw new InitialMessageException("Unreasonable buffer length: 
%s", remaining);
             }
 
             byte[] b = new byte[remaining];
-            int num_read = din.read(b);
+            int numRead = din.read(b);
 
 Review comment:
   @enixon I think my main argument on proposing of doing the naming changes as 
a future pull request instead of as part of this pull request is to ensure this 
pull request does not contain any semantic changes, make both this and the 
future pull request easier to review and evaluate. That approach has the down 
side of having to do another (or other sets of) pull requests for enabling more 
check styles rules, but I feel the benefit of staging the work out weight the 
cost of invalidate any PR or causing internal private code rebase multiple 
times, as each future pull request will be well scoped, and the amortized cost 
would likely be low for rebasing etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

Reply via email to