On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 02:25:33PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Hi,
I have returned and read the discussions. I have the following
remarks:
Building fop with jdk 1.4, as required, gives an error when
checkstyle-all-5.0.jar is present. The major.minor version 49.0 is not
supported. Thus removing
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Simon Pepping spepp...@leverkruid.euwrote:
Glenn notes that he used comments to suppress checkstyle warnings in
such cases as:
- certain uses of package, protected, or public visibility of fields,
which would have required a fairly large number of changes to
Glenn,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:07:52PM +0800, Glenn Adams wrote:
In any case, we now appear to be at a juncture where one of the following
options may be implemented:
(1) leave the CS* comments in place, but DON'T change the checkstyle rules
AT THIS TIME (but reserve option to change
I've mentioned the deprecated methods in my reply to Vincent. I'll
restore two instances which can be handled later. At least one is kind
of important as long as I haven't done a Barcode4J 2.1 release (which is
long overdue).
Do I understand you correctly, Simon, that you're OK to leave the CS
I want to move forward with Glenn's work. As you wrote, it is an
important addition to FOP which we cannot let go unused.
I feel that the CHECKSTYLE comments are clear, and allow us to take
any action later that we require. They could be harmful if we would
feel that further work would have to be
Thanks for providing your view. So we have a similar view.
This gives me another shove in the butt to finally make the B4J 2.1
release. JEuclid should already be fine. I've seen that Max has already
switched to the other method. So, we can easily remove the deprecate
method before the next
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Hi All,
I've mentioned the deprecated methods in my reply to Vincent. I'll
restore two instances which can be handled later. At least one is kind
of important as long as I haven't done a Barcode4J 2.1 release (which is
long overdue).
Do I understand you correctly,
I've now applied the patch locally and done a detailed review. I'm
posting this a bit outside the context of recent discussions to simply
state my present opinion after looking into the patch.
Generally, this is a big improvement. So thanks, Glenn, for your work
here!
I'm also not particularly
Hi,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I've now applied the patch locally and done a detailed review. I'm
posting this a bit outside the context of recent discussions to simply
state my present opinion after looking into the patch.
Generally, this is a big improvement. So thanks, Glenn, for your work
inline
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jeremias Maerki d...@jeremias-maerki.chwrote:
1. Clarify the thing with LineBreak*.
It was necessary to update the line break data in order to regenerate
LineBreakUtils.java; otherwise, the generation process failed to to a
missing column ('CP') when
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
3. Adjust the Checkstyle profile to allow log and disallow whitespace
before and after parantheses. Then remove log-related //CS constants
and excessive whitespace.
I would not agree to restricting the style rules to
11 matches
Mail list logo
