Hi Gary, On 15.10.2025 12:11, Gary Gregory wrote: > All IO methods (and Commons) have been sorted in AB order for years. It is > the simplest and easiest to mainatin and understand IMO. > > If you keep it that way in your PR, then no post merge edits are needed ;-)
Could you clarify the exact ordering you apply? It looks not purely alphabetical, but also grouped by member category. My understanding is that it matches Eclipse’s default: 1) Types 2) Static fields 3) Static initializers 4) Static methods 5) Instance fields 6) Instance initializers 7) Constructors 8) Instance methods with alphabetical sorting within each group. Is that correct? I raise this because the convention isn’t implicit and it differs across IDEs. For example, IntelliJ IDEA’s default is: 1) Static final fields (constants) 2) Static fields 3) Static initializers 4) Final fields 5) Instance fields 6) Instance initializers 7) Constructors 8) Static methods 9) Instance methods 10) Types (with enums/classes/interfaces grouped) and IntelliJ doesn’t alphabetize members by default (other than keeping getters and setters together). If the Eclipse-style ordering is our consensus, I’m happy to follow it in my PRs. I’d just note that it can make parameterized tests harder to read: data providers (static) and their tests (instance) end up far apart, so it would help to document this convention somewhere. We could commit some style configurations to `commons-parent`, so it becomes easy to apply the right conventions to each project. What do you think? Thanks, Piotr --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
