Checkstyle doubts

[Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi all!
Besides the release process I am playing a bit with Checkstyle and its
Eclipse plugin (eclipse-cs). There are some things that are configured
in Struts checkstyle file that I am not convinced of:
1. The generics angular brackets must be surrounded by spaces. For me
it is better to write:
Map<K, V>
and not
Map < K, V >

2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.

What do you think?

Ciao
Antonio

P.S.: I'll be on holidays, I will return on Wednesday. So if anyone
wants to collect the vote, finish the release etc., has my consensus
to do it :-) Happy Easter!

Re: Checkstyle doubts

[Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>]

On 4/5/07, Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all!
> Besides the release process I am playing a bit with Checkstyle and its
> Eclipse plugin (eclipse-cs). There are some things that are configured
> in Struts checkstyle file that I am not convinced of:
> 1. The generics angular brackets must be surrounded by spaces. For me
> it is better to write:
> Map<K, V>
> and not
> Map < K, V >
>
> 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.


I agree on both of the above.

Greg

Re: Checkstyle doubts

[Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>]

On 4/5/07, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> > > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.
> >
> >
> > Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a lack
> of
> > clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that hinders
> > rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces and
> > sees
> > 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the
> author
> > had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to
> > understand,
> > when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
> > translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We should
> > always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter the
> > code
> > with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder
> about.
>
>
> Interesting.  I've always preferred to be explicit and express things that
> are true by default.


Do you use "if (foo == true)", then? ;-) If not, why not?

  For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not
> consistently enough to communicate anything).  I can see your point but
> the
> lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me,
> just
> because I'm used to seeing it there.  (To be real honest I didn't realize
> it
> was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense).
>
> So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or
> cater
> to those who prefer language purit?  Personally, I still prefer the former
> because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill.  I'm willing
> to
> be convinced otherwise :-)


Frankly, if someone wants to pander to people who don't know the language
and don't want to, they should be writing in Pascal, not Java. ;-)

--
Martin Cooper


Greg
>

Re: Checkstyle doubts

[Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>]

Ok, after reviewing the answers, I will remove the "generics angular
brackets whitespace-around" rule, but will maintain the "no public in
interfaces" rule.

Antonio

2007/4/5, Nathan Bubna <nb...@gmail.com>:
> On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 4/5/07, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > my preference - however slight - is to avoid specifying the public.  In
> > > other words, if I'm writing the code, I won't put it in, but if someone
> > > else does, I don't consider it an issue.
> > >
> > > whatever others decide is fine with me.  can't we just leave it open to
> > > the preference of the original author?
> >
> >
> > Actually, I would argue for consistency over any particular option. In other
> > words, it is more important to me to have all of the interfaces either
> > specify public or not specify public than for my preferred option (no
> > 'public' modifier) to "win". Having a mixture of 'public' and no 'public' is
> > even more likely to make people stop and wonder why it is used in some
> > places but not others.
>
> i wholeheartedly agree with this.
>
> > --
> > Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> > Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > > > On 4/5/07, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> > > >> > > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a
> > > >> lack of
> > > >> > clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that
> > > >> hinders
> > > >> > rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces
> > > and
> > > >> > sees
> > > >> > 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the
> > > >> author
> > > >> > had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to
> > > >> > understand,
> > > >> > when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
> > > >> > translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We
> > > should
> > > >> > always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter
> > > the
> > > >> > code
> > > >> > with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder
> > > >> about.
> > > >
> > > > -0  hindering rapid comprehension is *highly* subjective.  it depends
> > > > on what you are trying to comprehend and what you are used to.  in
> > > > this instance that is apparently different for you and me. :)
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Interesting.  I've always preferred to be explicit and express things
> > > >> that
> > > >> are true by default.
> > > >
> > > > agreed.   i also like that the method signature looks like it does in
> > > > the implementation class.   i prefer the consistency...
> > > >
> > > >> For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not
> > > >> consistently enough to communicate anything).  I can see your point
> > > >> but the
> > > >> lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me,
> > > >> just
> > > >> because I'm used to seeing it there.  (To be real honest I didn't
> > > >> realize it
> > > >> was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense).
> > > >>
> > > >> So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or
> > > >> cater
> > > >> to those who prefer language purit?  Personally, I still prefer the
> > > >> former
> > > >> because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill.  I'm
> > > >> willing to
> > > >> be convinced otherwise :-)
> > > >
> > > > i don't really care.  to me it's a fairly trivial preference.  and
> > > > whatever "hindrance" the lack of "public" might be to my comprehension
> > > > is entirely negligible. :)
> > > >
> > > >> Greg
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Checkstyle doubts

[Nathan Bubna <nb...@gmail.com>]

On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 4/5/07, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > my preference - however slight - is to avoid specifying the public.  In
> > other words, if I'm writing the code, I won't put it in, but if someone
> > else does, I don't consider it an issue.
> >
> > whatever others decide is fine with me.  can't we just leave it open to
> > the preference of the original author?
>
>
> Actually, I would argue for consistency over any particular option. In other
> words, it is more important to me to have all of the interfaces either
> specify public or not specify public than for my preferred option (no
> 'public' modifier) to "win". Having a mixture of 'public' and no 'public' is
> even more likely to make people stop and wonder why it is used in some
> places but not others.

i wholeheartedly agree with this.

> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > > On 4/5/07, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> > >> > > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a
> > >> lack of
> > >> > clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that
> > >> hinders
> > >> > rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces
> > and
> > >> > sees
> > >> > 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the
> > >> author
> > >> > had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to
> > >> > understand,
> > >> > when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
> > >> > translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We
> > should
> > >> > always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter
> > the
> > >> > code
> > >> > with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder
> > >> about.
> > >
> > > -0  hindering rapid comprehension is *highly* subjective.  it depends
> > > on what you are trying to comprehend and what you are used to.  in
> > > this instance that is apparently different for you and me. :)
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Interesting.  I've always preferred to be explicit and express things
> > >> that
> > >> are true by default.
> > >
> > > agreed.   i also like that the method signature looks like it does in
> > > the implementation class.   i prefer the consistency...
> > >
> > >> For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not
> > >> consistently enough to communicate anything).  I can see your point
> > >> but the
> > >> lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me,
> > >> just
> > >> because I'm used to seeing it there.  (To be real honest I didn't
> > >> realize it
> > >> was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense).
> > >>
> > >> So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or
> > >> cater
> > >> to those who prefer language purit?  Personally, I still prefer the
> > >> former
> > >> because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill.  I'm
> > >> willing to
> > >> be convinced otherwise :-)
> > >
> > > i don't really care.  to me it's a fairly trivial preference.  and
> > > whatever "hindrance" the lack of "public" might be to my comprehension
> > > is entirely negligible. :)
> > >
> > >> Greg
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: Checkstyle doubts

[Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>]

On 4/5/07, David H. DeWolf <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> my preference - however slight - is to avoid specifying the public.  In
> other words, if I'm writing the code, I won't put it in, but if someone
> else does, I don't consider it an issue.
>
> whatever others decide is fine with me.  can't we just leave it open to
> the preference of the original author?


Actually, I would argue for consistency over any particular option. In other
words, it is more important to me to have all of the interfaces either
specify public or not specify public than for my preferred option (no
'public' modifier) to "win". Having a mixture of 'public' and no 'public' is
even more likely to make people stop and wonder why it is used in some
places but not others.

--
Martin Cooper


Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > On 4/5/07, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> >> > > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a
> >> lack of
> >> > clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that
> >> hinders
> >> > rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces
> and
> >> > sees
> >> > 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the
> >> author
> >> > had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to
> >> > understand,
> >> > when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
> >> > translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We
> should
> >> > always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter
> the
> >> > code
> >> > with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder
> >> about.
> >
> > -0  hindering rapid comprehension is *highly* subjective.  it depends
> > on what you are trying to comprehend and what you are used to.  in
> > this instance that is apparently different for you and me. :)
> >
> >>
> >> Interesting.  I've always preferred to be explicit and express things
> >> that
> >> are true by default.
> >
> > agreed.   i also like that the method signature looks like it does in
> > the implementation class.   i prefer the consistency...
> >
> >> For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not
> >> consistently enough to communicate anything).  I can see your point
> >> but the
> >> lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me,
> >> just
> >> because I'm used to seeing it there.  (To be real honest I didn't
> >> realize it
> >> was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense).
> >>
> >> So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or
> >> cater
> >> to those who prefer language purit?  Personally, I still prefer the
> >> former
> >> because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill.  I'm
> >> willing to
> >> be convinced otherwise :-)
> >
> > i don't really care.  to me it's a fairly trivial preference.  and
> > whatever "hindrance" the lack of "public" might be to my comprehension
> > is entirely negligible. :)
> >
> >> Greg
> >>
> >
>

Re: Checkstyle doubts

["David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org>]

my preference - however slight - is to avoid specifying the public.  In 
other words, if I'm writing the code, I won't put it in, but if someone 
else does, I don't consider it an issue.

whatever others decide is fine with me.  can't we just leave it open to 
the preference of the original author?

Nathan Bubna wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
>> > > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.
>> >
>> >
>> > Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a 
>> lack of
>> > clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that 
>> hinders
>> > rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces and
>> > sees
>> > 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the 
>> author
>> > had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to
>> > understand,
>> > when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
>> > translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We should
>> > always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter the
>> > code
>> > with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder 
>> about.
> 
> -0  hindering rapid comprehension is *highly* subjective.  it depends
> on what you are trying to comprehend and what you are used to.  in
> this instance that is apparently different for you and me. :)
> 
>>
>> Interesting.  I've always preferred to be explicit and express things 
>> that
>> are true by default.
> 
> agreed.   i also like that the method signature looks like it does in
> the implementation class.   i prefer the consistency...
> 
>> For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not
>> consistently enough to communicate anything).  I can see your point 
>> but the
>> lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me, 
>> just
>> because I'm used to seeing it there.  (To be real honest I didn't 
>> realize it
>> was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense).
>>
>> So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or 
>> cater
>> to those who prefer language purit?  Personally, I still prefer the 
>> former
>> because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill.  I'm 
>> willing to
>> be convinced otherwise :-)
> 
> i don't really care.  to me it's a fairly trivial preference.  and
> whatever "hindrance" the lack of "public" might be to my comprehension
> is entirely negligible. :)
> 
>> Greg
>>
> 

Re: Checkstyle doubts

[Nathan Bubna <nb...@gmail.com>]

On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Nathan Bubna <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/5/07, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> > > > > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a
> > lack of
> > > > clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that
> > hinders
> > > > rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces
> > and
> > > > sees
> > > > 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the
> > author
> > > > had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to
> > > > understand,
> > > > when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
> > > > translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We
> > should
> > > > always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter the
> > > > code
> > > > with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder
> > about.
> >
> > -0  hindering rapid comprehension is *highly* subjective.  it depends
> > on what you are trying to comprehend and what you are used to.  in
> > this instance that is apparently different for you and me. :)
> >
> > >
> > > Interesting.  I've always preferred to be explicit and express things
> > that
> > > are true by default.
> >
> > agreed.   i also like that the method signature looks like it does in
> > the implementation class.   i prefer the consistency...
>
>
> This is a perfect demonstration of my point. Creating interfaces is a design
> activity; creating implementation classes is an implementation activity.
> They *should* be distinct, and you *should* be thinking differently when you
> write them. Making them look the same confuses these two very different
> activities and can lead to poor interface design.

heh.  seems like an entirely new point to me, probably the first time
i've heard the phrase "implementation activity", and i don't agree
with the conclusion that declaring 'public' has anything to do with
poor interface design. :)  still, i can appreciate wanting to further
differentiate between the two types of classes, and since it's appears
to be a somewhat religious issue to you and no one else cares much,
i'll back your play and vote for not allowing unnecessary (and
potentially threatening) 'public' modifiers! i'll adjust quite quickly
and might even come to value it too. :)

> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> > For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not
> > > consistently enough to communicate anything).  I can see your point but
> > the
> > > lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me,
> > just
> > > because I'm used to seeing it there.  (To be real honest I didn't
> > realize it
> > > was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense).
> > >
> > > So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or
> > cater
> > > to those who prefer language purit?  Personally, I still prefer the
> > former
> > > because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill.  I'm
> > willing to
> > > be convinced otherwise :-)
> >
> > i don't really care.  to me it's a fairly trivial preference.  and
> > whatever "hindrance" the lack of "public" might be to my comprehension
> > is entirely negligible. :)
> >
> > > Greg
> > >
> >
>

Re: Checkstyle doubts

[Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>]

On 4/5/07, Nathan Bubna <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/5/07, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> > > > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a
> lack of
> > > clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that
> hinders
> > > rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces
> and
> > > sees
> > > 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the
> author
> > > had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to
> > > understand,
> > > when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
> > > translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We
> should
> > > always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter the
> > > code
> > > with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder
> about.
>
> -0  hindering rapid comprehension is *highly* subjective.  it depends
> on what you are trying to comprehend and what you are used to.  in
> this instance that is apparently different for you and me. :)
>
> >
> > Interesting.  I've always preferred to be explicit and express things
> that
> > are true by default.
>
> agreed.   i also like that the method signature looks like it does in
> the implementation class.   i prefer the consistency...


This is a perfect demonstration of my point. Creating interfaces is a design
activity; creating implementation classes is an implementation activity.
They *should* be distinct, and you *should* be thinking differently when you
write them. Making them look the same confuses these two very different
activities and can lead to poor interface design.

--
Martin Cooper


> For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not
> > consistently enough to communicate anything).  I can see your point but
> the
> > lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me,
> just
> > because I'm used to seeing it there.  (To be real honest I didn't
> realize it
> > was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense).
> >
> > So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or
> cater
> > to those who prefer language purit?  Personally, I still prefer the
> former
> > because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill.  I'm
> willing to
> > be convinced otherwise :-)
>
> i don't really care.  to me it's a fairly trivial preference.  and
> whatever "hindrance" the lack of "public" might be to my comprehension
> is entirely negligible. :)
>
> > Greg
> >
>

Re: Checkstyle doubts

[Nathan Bubna <nb...@gmail.com>]

On 4/5/07, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> > > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.
> >
> >
> > Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a lack of
> > clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that hinders
> > rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces and
> > sees
> > 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the author
> > had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to
> > understand,
> > when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
> > translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We should
> > always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter the
> > code
> > with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder about.

-0  hindering rapid comprehension is *highly* subjective.  it depends
on what you are trying to comprehend and what you are used to.  in
this instance that is apparently different for you and me. :)

>
> Interesting.  I've always preferred to be explicit and express things that
> are true by default.

agreed.   i also like that the method signature looks like it does in
the implementation class.   i prefer the consistency...

> For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not
> consistently enough to communicate anything).  I can see your point but the
> lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me, just
> because I'm used to seeing it there.  (To be real honest I didn't realize it
> was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense).
>
> So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or cater
> to those who prefer language purit?  Personally, I still prefer the former
> because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill.  I'm willing to
> be convinced otherwise :-)

i don't really care.  to me it's a fairly trivial preference.  and
whatever "hindrance" the lack of "public" might be to my comprehension
is entirely negligible. :)

> Greg
>

Re: Checkstyle doubts

[Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>]

On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.
>
>
> Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a lack of
> clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that hinders
> rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces and
> sees
> 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the author
> had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to
> understand,
> when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
> translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We should
> always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter the
> code
> with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder about.


Interesting.  I've always preferred to be explicit and express things that
are true by default.  For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not
consistently enough to communicate anything).  I can see your point but the
lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me, just
because I'm used to seeing it there.  (To be real honest I didn't realize it
was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense).

So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or cater
to those who prefer language purit?  Personally, I still prefer the former
because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill.  I'm willing to
be convinced otherwise :-)

Greg

Re: Checkstyle doubts

[Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>]

On 4/5/07, Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all!
> Besides the release process I am playing a bit with Checkstyle and its
> Eclipse plugin (eclipse-cs). There are some things that are configured
> in Struts checkstyle file that I am not convinced of:
> 1. The generics angular brackets must be surrounded by spaces. For me
> it is better to write:
> Map<K, V>
> and not
> Map < K, V >


I agree with you on this one.

2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that
> checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad.


Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a lack of
clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that hinders
rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces and sees
'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the author
had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to understand,
when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to
translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We should
always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter the code
with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder about.

--
Martin Cooper


What do you think?
>
> Ciao
> Antonio
>
> P.S.: I'll be on holidays, I will return on Wednesday. So if anyone
> wants to collect the vote, finish the release etc., has my consensus
> to do it :-) Happy Easter!
>