> > This is the result of the DOSGi codebase having no style enforced at all, I'd > suggest to copy the CXF rules there
+1 to that! Just getting the CXF rules setup and enforced would help a lot. Dan On May 21, 2013, at 5:36 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Amichai > On 21/05/13 10:28, A. Rothman wrote: >> >> I'm glad you brought styling up for discussion, since there are various >> inconsistencies in the current code base: >> >> - Line lengths are indeed one issue I've noticed - I'd go for 120 chars >> per line as well, though it's not as important as being consistent. >> There are currently lines that are broken also at less than 100 chars, >> at awkward places, for no apparent reason. >> >> - Whitespace: there are currently places where tabs are used for >> indentation instead of spaces, as well as many trailing spaces (which >> were introducing many artificial diffs in patches I submitted). >> >> - There are occasional blank lines added at unhelpful locations, e.g. >> before the closing brace of a method, or between two closing braces of >> two nested blocks. >> >> - Some method definitions have parameter lists stacked with one >> parameter per line with a common left-aligned margin, whereas others use >> regular line-continuation rules and indentation (I personally much >> prefer the latter). >> >> - Inconsistent naming of variables, even of the same type and meaning in >> very adjacent code. >> >> - while javadocs are mostly missing, also the existing ones often don't >> conform to the standard javadoc conventions. >> >> - Various other inconsistencies I can't remember at the moment, but >> which made review and work on the code harder for a newcomer (and would >> make maintenance harder and more error-prone for existing devs as well). >> >> It would be great to do a one-time sweep and fix all the existing >> inconsistencies and respective rules, once the standard is decided upon, >> and to better enforce them in the future. > > This is the result of the DOSGi codebase having no style enforced at all, I'd > suggest to copy the CXF rules there > > Hi Christian: IMHO the longer the lines the more difficult they are to read, > though I guess much depends on the screen resolution and how many editors are > open :-), etc... I probably don't mind if it's 110 or 120 limit, I'd try to > keep it within 100 anyway :-) > > Sergey >> >> Disclaimer: I'm new here, and haven't reviewed the entire CXF code base, >> but focused mainly on the DOSGi subproject, so I don't know how much of >> this applies elsewhere. >> >> Christian - could you please also add a link to the checkstyle/pmd rules >> in the guidelines page? >> >> Amichai >> >> On 05/21/2013 11:03 AM, Christian Schneider wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> at the moment our rules for code styles are a bit hidden. When Amichai >>> asked me about the rules at the CXF code base it took me some time to >>> find the >>> formatter for eclipse. I added a link to the Coding Guidelines in the >>> wiki. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CXF/Coding+Guidelines >>> >>> When I checked it I found that the code formatter sets the line length >>> to 110 characters while the checkstyle rule checks for 120 characters. >>> I think we should set the same count for both rules. >>> >>> Which do you prefer? >>> >>> I favour 120 characters. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> Btw. the checkstyle rules are here: >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/build-utils/trunk/buildtools/src/main/resources/cxf-checkstyle.xml >>> >>> >> >> > -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
