all, I am for adding a convention on enums to the coding conventions, thought I don't like Johns best, I'm fine with it and with Alex'. Let's add this one and my proposal on method length and number of methods in classes to the conventions and keep in mind that a convention is not a law. We won't lynch anybody over them. Also migration to adherence does not have to take place today, but may well wait till 5.0 and/or 6.0. In cases it isn't harmful a newbee knows he can quite safely propose a change and get a feel for the process this way. By adding them we do state the necessity and our wish for those styles of coding and that is the first step we should take.
my € 0,02, Daan On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Donal Lafferty <donal.laffe...@citrix.com>wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Frank Zhang [mailto:frank.zh...@citrix.com] > > Sent: 19 July 2013 12:19 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: RE: code formatting for enums > > > > Then the most important factor of name > > convention is user experience where Running is more user friendly than > > IS_RUNNING or whatever all capitalized sentence splitting by underscore. > > > [Donal Lafferty] > User experience? Tell me about it. > > Consider how much easier it is to use HypervisorType.HyperV rather than > HypervisorType.Hyperv > > E.g. try running 'grep -R Hyperv *' some time :) > > I'm in favour of *anything* that changes the 'Hyperv' hypervisor type to a > unique sequence. > >
