You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> on 2012/02/19 16:23:24 UTC
Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Unlike Commons, you have to be granted permission to commit at other projects at the ASF and each of them have their own PMC and build their own communities. Commons is a single community and thus it makes sense for developers to be able to easily switch between sub projects. Having commonality between the projects encourages that as it means you don't have to figure out what style settings you need as you switch between projects.
>>
>
> I continue seeing it an imposition that can be avoided, since not
> everybody commits in each component.
> I switched across components and I just respected the original code
> format (well, not always true, because I reformatted Discovery and
> still regret for it) - that doesn't mean that style was always the
> same, since each component defined its own config (and often the
> exception rules)
>
> If a common style has to be applied to all commons components, IMHO a
> VOTE should be subjected to the PMC
I agree with that. However, there is nothing wrong with discussing it first to see if a vote is even warranted.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Should a vote about a commons wide checkstyle config be submitted to the PMC (was Re: Common checkstyle)
Posted by Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>.
Nah. It just means that when someone actually decides to do it we will review it then. I don't really see the point in voting on something and then no one following through to implement it.
Ralph
On Feb 29, 2012, at 5:27 AM, Benedikt Ritter <be...@systemoutprintln.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for the record: since more than 72h have passed with no response, I guess we can drop this topic and leave everything the way it is.
>
> Regards,
> Benedikt
>
> Am 25.02.2012 17:33, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
>> Hi,
>>
>> for some reason this discussion ended without a result. Maybe it is time
>> to summarize what has been discussed so far.
>>
>> This all goes back to a commit by Gary, that fixed several check style
>> issues in VFS [1]. The following discussion between Gary and Ralph and
>> others [2] showed, that there are several thinks unclear regarding the
>> check style configurations in commons:
>>
>> - which configuration to use when starting a new project
>> - if the check style configuration of a project can be changed
>> - if there is a commons wide check style configuration, that all
>> projects could agree on
>>
>> It was then suggested to call a vote on whether there should be a
>> commons wide check style configuration. This question is still unanswered.
>>
>> Arguments for a commons wide configuration:
>>
>> - it is easier for people to swap between projects and for new
>> contributers to get started
>> - Commons is one subproject of the ASF, so it should have only one style
>> - all source code would be formated the same way (making it "common" )
>>
>> Arguments against a commons wide configuration:
>>
>> - several projects have evolved their configuration in different ways,
>> making it hard to find a commons wide style
>> - Reformatting will be a lot of work
>> - teams should be able to choose their own style
>> - most people only develop a few components, so that the swapping is not
>> that much of an issue
>> - Technical restrictions (where to place such a commons wide check style
>> file?)
>>
>> As a solution to those arguments it was proposed to have a default check
>> style configuration, that can be used for new projects. This
>> configuration may be overwritten by the different components if they
>> feel the need.
>>
>> So now we have to answer the question: Should a vote be submitted to the
>> PMC?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Benedikt
>>
>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/4yxhoefo37tpighf
>> [2] http://markmail.org/thread/m337z45fe2d7dps2
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Should a vote about a commons wide checkstyle config be submitted
to the PMC (was Re: Common checkstyle)
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <be...@systemoutprintln.de>.
Hi,
for the record: since more than 72h have passed with no response, I
guess we can drop this topic and leave everything the way it is.
Regards,
Benedikt
Am 25.02.2012 17:33, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> Hi,
>
> for some reason this discussion ended without a result. Maybe it is time
> to summarize what has been discussed so far.
>
> This all goes back to a commit by Gary, that fixed several check style
> issues in VFS [1]. The following discussion between Gary and Ralph and
> others [2] showed, that there are several thinks unclear regarding the
> check style configurations in commons:
>
> - which configuration to use when starting a new project
> - if the check style configuration of a project can be changed
> - if there is a commons wide check style configuration, that all
> projects could agree on
>
> It was then suggested to call a vote on whether there should be a
> commons wide check style configuration. This question is still unanswered.
>
> Arguments for a commons wide configuration:
>
> - it is easier for people to swap between projects and for new
> contributers to get started
> - Commons is one subproject of the ASF, so it should have only one style
> - all source code would be formated the same way (making it "common" )
>
> Arguments against a commons wide configuration:
>
> - several projects have evolved their configuration in different ways,
> making it hard to find a commons wide style
> - Reformatting will be a lot of work
> - teams should be able to choose their own style
> - most people only develop a few components, so that the swapping is not
> that much of an issue
> - Technical restrictions (where to place such a commons wide check style
> file?)
>
> As a solution to those arguments it was proposed to have a default check
> style configuration, that can be used for new projects. This
> configuration may be overwritten by the different components if they
> feel the need.
>
> So now we have to answer the question: Should a vote be submitted to the
> PMC?
>
> Regards,
> Benedikt
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/4yxhoefo37tpighf
> [2] http://markmail.org/thread/m337z45fe2d7dps2
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Should a vote about a commons wide checkstyle config be submitted
to the PMC (was Re: Common checkstyle)
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Jörg Schaible
<Jo...@scalaris.com>wrote:
> Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > for the record: since more than 72h have passed with no response, I
> > guess we can drop this topic and leave everything the way it is.
>
> Or it means, you did not draw any attention to a new topic in a thread of
> ~50 postings ...
>
Right! This is a good post that touches on a 'religious' issue. For me
formatting should be consistent and automatic using your IDE.
So ideally, we can define a set of rules that can be implemented in CS and
in an IDE (Eclipse, IJ, NB) and saved in SVN. Then we can decide if we want
to save IDE settings in a new dir called ide/{ide_name}/{ide_version}, that
kind of thing.
I would like to see CS defined in the parent and let each component
override as they see fit.
Gary
>
> - Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Should a vote about a commons wide checkstyle config be submitted to the PMC (was Re: Common checkstyle)
Posted by Jörg Schaible <Jo...@scalaris.com>.
Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for the record: since more than 72h have passed with no response, I
> guess we can drop this topic and leave everything the way it is.
Or it means, you did not draw any attention to a new topic in a thread of
~50 postings ...
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Should a vote about a commons wide checkstyle config be submitted
to the PMC (was Re: Common checkstyle)
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <be...@systemoutprintln.de>.
Hi,
for some reason this discussion ended without a result. Maybe it is time
to summarize what has been discussed so far.
This all goes back to a commit by Gary, that fixed several check style
issues in VFS [1]. The following discussion between Gary and Ralph and
others [2] showed, that there are several thinks unclear regarding the
check style configurations in commons:
- which configuration to use when starting a new project
- if the check style configuration of a project can be changed
- if there is a commons wide check style configuration, that all
projects could agree on
It was then suggested to call a vote on whether there should be a
commons wide check style configuration. This question is still unanswered.
Arguments for a commons wide configuration:
- it is easier for people to swap between projects and for new
contributers to get started
- Commons is one subproject of the ASF, so it should have only one style
- all source code would be formated the same way (making it "common" )
Arguments against a commons wide configuration:
- several projects have evolved their configuration in different ways,
making it hard to find a commons wide style
- Reformatting will be a lot of work
- teams should be able to choose their own style
- most people only develop a few components, so that the swapping is not
that much of an issue
- Technical restrictions (where to place such a commons wide check style
file?)
As a solution to those arguments it was proposed to have a default check
style configuration, that can be used for new projects. This
configuration may be overwritten by the different components if they
feel the need.
So now we have to answer the question: Should a vote be submitted to the
PMC?
Regards,
Benedikt
[1] http://markmail.org/thread/4yxhoefo37tpighf
[2] http://markmail.org/thread/m337z45fe2d7dps2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 21, 2012, at 2:38, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sorry but I lost you, at that point I don't understand what meaning we
> want to attribute to the "checkstyle configuration can be overridden"
> sentence.
>
> Do you mean that we add the suppressions file, in order to skip some
> violations (i.e. signature too long of the default 80 char estimated
> by the default rules)
>
> or
>
> committers can define their own config files?
Both I hope.
Gary
>
> TIA,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Benedikt Ritter
>> <be...@systemoutprintln.de>wrote:
>>
>>> Am 19.02.2012 22:57, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
>>>
>>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects
>>>>> override them if they want to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think that is, what Gary meant in the first place ;-)
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/**201202.mbox/%3C-*
>>> *662605764588844473%**40unknownmsgid%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201202.mbox/%3C-662605764588844473%40unknownmsgid%3E>
>>
>>
>> Yes indeed, thank you for pointing that out in the link above. I do not
>> like to repeat myself.
>>
>> A advantage to an overridable default is that it is quicker to get a new
>> project off and running without letting it go wild with yet another set of
>> conventions. Right now, every time I want to work with one of the 20+
>> commons components (!= project), I have to create yet another IDE set of
>> formatter settings, it's become intolerable and sadly ironic for a project
>> named "Commons".
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To be honest, I'm really indifferent regarding what style to use. But I've
>>> come to the conclusion, that coding style is an important thing for some of
>>> you. I think the result of this discussion should be an easy way for
>>> everyone to switch between components, even if some components are
>>> developed by a few committers only (that is why I suggested to put the IDE
>>> configuration files on the website).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Benedikt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> that is much more than reasonable, we are on the same path now! :)
>>>>
>>>> -Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~**simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>>>> http://simonetripodi.**livejournal.com/<http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/>
>>>> http://twitter.com/**simonetripodi <http://twitter.com/simonetripodi>
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Ralph Goers<rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Simone Tripodi<si...@apache.org>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> While I agree that checkstyle has to be consistent inside each
>>>>>> component, so I would be +1 on having the plugin in the parent (with
>>>>>> PMD and Findbugs as mentioned by Gary), I am still reluctant with
>>>>>> adopting a general checkstyle *configuration* for all components, and
>>>>>> I make you a sample: commons-ognl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> main OGNL contributors have been olamy, mcucchiara, grobmeier and
>>>>>> simonetripodi<http://**svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/**
>>>>>> ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%**2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk<http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>> We all (except grobmeier :P) like the mvn style (brought by
>>>>>> checkstyle-plugin) and we are comfortable on working with it. No one
>>>>>> else committed on OGNL.
>>>>>> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
>>>>>> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
>>>>>> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Concluding: PMD, findbugs and checkstyle by default: +1; deciding
>>>>>> which style has to be applied: -1. Good practice are one thing, strict
>>>>>> rules are different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects
>>>>> override them if they want to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Sorry but I lost you, at that point I don't understand what meaning we
want to attribute to the "checkstyle configuration can be overridden"
sentence.
Do you mean that we add the suppressions file, in order to skip some
violations (i.e. signature too long of the default 80 char estimated
by the default rules)
or
committers can define their own config files?
TIA,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Benedikt Ritter
> <be...@systemoutprintln.de>wrote:
>
>> Am 19.02.2012 22:57, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
>>
>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects
>>>> override them if they want to.
>>>>
>>>
>> I think that is, what Gary meant in the first place ;-)
>> http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/**201202.mbox/%3C-*
>> *662605764588844473%**40unknownmsgid%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201202.mbox/%3C-662605764588844473%40unknownmsgid%3E>
>
>
> Yes indeed, thank you for pointing that out in the link above. I do not
> like to repeat myself.
>
> A advantage to an overridable default is that it is quicker to get a new
> project off and running without letting it go wild with yet another set of
> conventions. Right now, every time I want to work with one of the 20+
> commons components (!= project), I have to create yet another IDE set of
> formatter settings, it's become intolerable and sadly ironic for a project
> named "Commons".
>
> Gary
>
>>
>>
>> To be honest, I'm really indifferent regarding what style to use. But I've
>> come to the conclusion, that coding style is an important thing for some of
>> you. I think the result of this discussion should be an easy way for
>> everyone to switch between components, even if some components are
>> developed by a few committers only (that is why I suggested to put the IDE
>> configuration files on the website).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Benedikt
>>
>>
>>
>>> that is much more than reasonable, we are on the same path now! :)
>>>
>>> -Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~**simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>>> http://simonetripodi.**livejournal.com/<http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/>
>>> http://twitter.com/**simonetripodi <http://twitter.com/simonetripodi>
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Ralph Goers<rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Simone Tripodi<si...@apache.org>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While I agree that checkstyle has to be consistent inside each
>>>>> component, so I would be +1 on having the plugin in the parent (with
>>>>> PMD and Findbugs as mentioned by Gary), I am still reluctant with
>>>>> adopting a general checkstyle *configuration* for all components, and
>>>>> I make you a sample: commons-ognl.
>>>>>
>>>>> main OGNL contributors have been olamy, mcucchiara, grobmeier and
>>>>> simonetripodi<http://**svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/**
>>>>> ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%**2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk<http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk>
>>>>> >.
>>>>> We all (except grobmeier :P) like the mvn style (brought by
>>>>> checkstyle-plugin) and we are comfortable on working with it. No one
>>>>> else committed on OGNL.
>>>>> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
>>>>> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
>>>>> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Concluding: PMD, findbugs and checkstyle by default: +1; deciding
>>>>> which style has to be applied: -1. Good practice are one thing, strict
>>>>> rules are different.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects
>>>> override them if they want to.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> ---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Benedikt Ritter
<be...@systemoutprintln.de>wrote:
> Am 19.02.2012 22:57, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
>
> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects
>>> override them if they want to.
>>>
>>
> I think that is, what Gary meant in the first place ;-)
> http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/**201202.mbox/%3C-*
> *662605764588844473%**40unknownmsgid%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201202.mbox/%3C-662605764588844473%40unknownmsgid%3E>
Yes indeed, thank you for pointing that out in the link above. I do not
like to repeat myself.
A advantage to an overridable default is that it is quicker to get a new
project off and running without letting it go wild with yet another set of
conventions. Right now, every time I want to work with one of the 20+
commons components (!= project), I have to create yet another IDE set of
formatter settings, it's become intolerable and sadly ironic for a project
named "Commons".
Gary
>
>
> To be honest, I'm really indifferent regarding what style to use. But I've
> come to the conclusion, that coding style is an important thing for some of
> you. I think the result of this discussion should be an easy way for
> everyone to switch between components, even if some components are
> developed by a few committers only (that is why I suggested to put the IDE
> configuration files on the website).
>
> Regards,
> Benedikt
>
>
>
>> that is much more than reasonable, we are on the same path now! :)
>>
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~**simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>> http://simonetripodi.**livejournal.com/<http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/>
>> http://twitter.com/**simonetripodi <http://twitter.com/simonetripodi>
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Ralph Goers<rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Simone Tripodi<si...@apache.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> While I agree that checkstyle has to be consistent inside each
>>>> component, so I would be +1 on having the plugin in the parent (with
>>>> PMD and Findbugs as mentioned by Gary), I am still reluctant with
>>>> adopting a general checkstyle *configuration* for all components, and
>>>> I make you a sample: commons-ognl.
>>>>
>>>> main OGNL contributors have been olamy, mcucchiara, grobmeier and
>>>> simonetripodi<http://**svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/**
>>>> ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%**2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk<http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk>
>>>> >.
>>>> We all (except grobmeier :P) like the mvn style (brought by
>>>> checkstyle-plugin) and we are comfortable on working with it. No one
>>>> else committed on OGNL.
>>>> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
>>>> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
>>>> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
>>>>
>>>> Concluding: PMD, findbugs and checkstyle by default: +1; deciding
>>>> which style has to be applied: -1. Good practice are one thing, strict
>>>> rules are different.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects
>>> override them if they want to.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Feb 20, 2012, at 7:28 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 20 February 2012 09:10, Benedikt Ritter <be...@systemoutprintln.de> wrote:
>> Am 19.02.2012 22:57, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
>>
>>>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects
>>>> override them if they want to.
>>
>>
>> I think that is, what Gary meant in the first place ;-)
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201202.mbox/%3C-662605764588844473%40unknownmsgid%3E
>>
>> To be honest, I'm really indifferent regarding what style to use. But I've
>> come to the conclusion, that coding style is an important thing for some of
>> you. I think the result of this discussion should be an easy way for
>> everyone to switch between components, even if some components are developed
>> by a few committers only (that is why I suggested to put the IDE
>> configuration files on the website).
>
> If there were a single coding style that all present and future
> Commons committers could agree on, then it would make sense to make
> that the Commons style.
> However, the fact that we are having these discussions proves that
> there is no such style.
> Any style chosen today will necessarily depend on those voting at the
> time - at a later date, a different style will probably be chosen.
>
> Does it really make sense to change all the components to suit a style that is
> - not agreed by all at present
> - may become a minority style choice in future?
>
> ==
>
> However, there may be some style aspects that we can agree on:
> - tabs are banned
> - indentation (Java = 4; xml = 2 or 4 )
>
> I'm not sure there's anything else that has not been contentious at some point.
>
Actually, I'd bet a lot of things can be agreed on:
1. Is whitespace after "(" and before ")" permitted?
2. Is whitespace required before and after operators (i.e. a=1 vs a = 1).
3. Do public static final objects require their names be in all caps.
and many more
The item that typically is the point of contention is how curly braces are used. I used to care but I've worked on so many code bases that I gave up caring a long time ago.
To me, the issue is really about making it easy to work on multiple projects and have the IDE be able to tell you about style errors. In IntelliJ, and I assume Eclipse, each project can be configured with its own style. If there is a default that also provides the IDE rules and we were to require projects to provide IDE rules for whatever style they want to use I would expect more projects would select the default. But even if they didn't, having the checkstyle rules available for every project would still make it easier.
Ralph
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 20 February 2012 09:10, Benedikt Ritter <be...@systemoutprintln.de> wrote:
> Am 19.02.2012 22:57, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
>
>>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects
>>> override them if they want to.
>
>
> I think that is, what Gary meant in the first place ;-)
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201202.mbox/%3C-662605764588844473%40unknownmsgid%3E
>
> To be honest, I'm really indifferent regarding what style to use. But I've
> come to the conclusion, that coding style is an important thing for some of
> you. I think the result of this discussion should be an easy way for
> everyone to switch between components, even if some components are developed
> by a few committers only (that is why I suggested to put the IDE
> configuration files on the website).
If there were a single coding style that all present and future
Commons committers could agree on, then it would make sense to make
that the Commons style.
However, the fact that we are having these discussions proves that
there is no such style.
Any style chosen today will necessarily depend on those voting at the
time - at a later date, a different style will probably be chosen.
Does it really make sense to change all the components to suit a style that is
- not agreed by all at present
- may become a minority style choice in future?
==
However, there may be some style aspects that we can agree on:
- tabs are banned
- indentation (Java = 4; xml = 2 or 4 )
I'm not sure there's anything else that has not been contentious at some point.
> Regards,
> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>> that is much more than reasonable, we are on the same path now! :)
>>
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Ralph Goers<rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Simone Tripodi<si...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While I agree that checkstyle has to be consistent inside each
>>>> component, so I would be +1 on having the plugin in the parent (with
>>>> PMD and Findbugs as mentioned by Gary), I am still reluctant with
>>>> adopting a general checkstyle *configuration* for all components, and
>>>> I make you a sample: commons-ognl.
>>>>
>>>> main OGNL contributors have been olamy, mcucchiara, grobmeier and
>>>>
>>>> simonetripodi<http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk>.
>>>> We all (except grobmeier :P) like the mvn style (brought by
>>>> checkstyle-plugin) and we are comfortable on working with it. No one
>>>> else committed on OGNL.
>>>> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
>>>> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
>>>> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
>>>>
>>>> Concluding: PMD, findbugs and checkstyle by default: +1; deciding
>>>> which style has to be applied: -1. Good practice are one thing, strict
>>>> rules are different.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects
>>> override them if they want to.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <be...@systemoutprintln.de>.
Am 19.02.2012 22:57, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects override them if they want to.
I think that is, what Gary meant in the first place ;-)
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201202.mbox/%3C-662605764588844473%40unknownmsgid%3E
To be honest, I'm really indifferent regarding what style to use. But
I've come to the conclusion, that coding style is an important thing for
some of you. I think the result of this discussion should be an easy way
for everyone to switch between components, even if some components are
developed by a few committers only (that is why I suggested to put the
IDE configuration files on the website).
Regards,
Benedikt
>
> that is much more than reasonable, we are on the same path now! :)
>
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Ralph Goers<rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Simone Tripodi<si...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> While I agree that checkstyle has to be consistent inside each
>>> component, so I would be +1 on having the plugin in the parent (with
>>> PMD and Findbugs as mentioned by Gary), I am still reluctant with
>>> adopting a general checkstyle *configuration* for all components, and
>>> I make you a sample: commons-ognl.
>>>
>>> main OGNL contributors have been olamy, mcucchiara, grobmeier and
>>> simonetripodi<http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk>.
>>> We all (except grobmeier :P) like the mvn style (brought by
>>> checkstyle-plugin) and we are comfortable on working with it. No one
>>> else committed on OGNL.
>>> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
>>> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
>>> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
>>>
>>> Concluding: PMD, findbugs and checkstyle by default: +1; deciding
>>> which style has to be applied: -1. Good practice are one thing, strict
>>> rules are different.
>>
>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects override them if they want to.
>>
>> Ralph
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 19/02/2012 20:26, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
>> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
>> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
>
> It shouldn't. Those that do the work get to make the decisions.
+1, let the component committers make the decision - not the PMC impose.
Niall
> Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 19/02/2012 20:26, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
It shouldn't. Those that do the work get to make the decisions.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Simone Tripodi
<si...@apache.org> wrote:
> main OGNL contributors have been olamy, mcucchiara, grobmeier and
> simonetripodi <http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk>.
> We all (except grobmeier :P) like the mvn style (brought by
> checkstyle-plugin) and we are comfortable on working with it. No one
> else committed on OGNL.
haha I always forget there are actually people who LIKE this convention ;-)
> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
its maybe my fault. I tend to think of Commons as one project which
should follow one convention. Actually it is many little projects
which are too small to become a tlp. My thought about standard code
style: contributors can get into the code more easily. But hey, it is
just a minor plus here, I agree. So please read on.
> Concluding: PMD, findbugs and checkstyle by default: +1; deciding
> which style has to be applied: -1. Good practice are one thing, strict
> rules are different.
Ok I follow your argument and expand it because I like it.
Then it would be ok for a component to use gradle instead of maven (in
theory)? The pom.xml is an artwork, but it is far from being easy to
understand or even easy to use. Why do we have so many discussions on
jdk 5 or not? On can we break bc or not? Dont get me wrong - I am fine
with what you say. Let component committers decide (even when it means
i am overruled on ognl case haha). And a component committer is
somebody who actually commits code to the component - not just fixing
typos in the website or caring on the clirr report.
But then please let us apply generics to collections, because to my
knowledge most of the committers want them. Let us break backwards
compatibility (with major version bumps) when component committers
feel like that without huge discussions. This approach might lead us
to a more agile Commons with more releases on up-to-date technologies
and I gladly will commit code the maven way.
Cheers
Christian
>
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Unlike Commons, you have to be granted permission to commit at other projects at the ASF and each of them have their own PMC and build their own communities. Commons is a single community and thus it makes sense for developers to be able to easily switch between sub projects. Having commonality between the projects encourages that as it means you don't have to figure out what style settings you need as you switch between projects.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I continue seeing it an imposition that can be avoided, since not
>>>> everybody commits in each component.
>>>> I switched across components and I just respected the original code
>>>> format (well, not always true, because I reformatted Discovery and
>>>> still regret for it) - that doesn't mean that style was always the
>>>> same, since each component defined its own config (and often the
>>>> exception rules)
>>>>
>>>> If a common style has to be applied to all commons components, IMHO a
>>>> VOTE should be subjected to the PMC
>>>
>>> I agree with that. However, there is nothing wrong with discussing it first to see if a vote is even warranted.
>>
>> If the question is to have a common commons codestyle, so yes. I think
>> public projects should follow standards. And there are sun/oracle
>> coding conventions.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects override them if they want to.
that is much more than reasonable, we are on the same path now! :)
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> While I agree that checkstyle has to be consistent inside each
>> component, so I would be +1 on having the plugin in the parent (with
>> PMD and Findbugs as mentioned by Gary), I am still reluctant with
>> adopting a general checkstyle *configuration* for all components, and
>> I make you a sample: commons-ognl.
>>
>> main OGNL contributors have been olamy, mcucchiara, grobmeier and
>> simonetripodi <http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk>.
>> We all (except grobmeier :P) like the mvn style (brought by
>> checkstyle-plugin) and we are comfortable on working with it. No one
>> else committed on OGNL.
>> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
>> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
>> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
>>
>> Concluding: PMD, findbugs and checkstyle by default: +1; deciding
>> which style has to be applied: -1. Good practice are one thing, strict
>> rules are different.
>
> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects override them if they want to.
>
> Ralph
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>.
On Feb 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> wrote:
> While I agree that checkstyle has to be consistent inside each
> component, so I would be +1 on having the plugin in the parent (with
> PMD and Findbugs as mentioned by Gary), I am still reluctant with
> adopting a general checkstyle *configuration* for all components, and
> I make you a sample: commons-ognl.
>
> main OGNL contributors have been olamy, mcucchiara, grobmeier and
> simonetripodi <http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk>.
> We all (except grobmeier :P) like the mvn style (brought by
> checkstyle-plugin) and we are comfortable on working with it. No one
> else committed on OGNL.
> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
>
> Concluding: PMD, findbugs and checkstyle by default: +1; deciding
> which style has to be applied: -1. Good practice are one thing, strict
> rules are different.
I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects override them if they want to.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
While I agree that checkstyle has to be consistent inside each
component, so I would be +1 on having the plugin in the parent (with
PMD and Findbugs as mentioned by Gary), I am still reluctant with
adopting a general checkstyle *configuration* for all components, and
I make you a sample: commons-ognl.
main OGNL contributors have been olamy, mcucchiara, grobmeier and
simonetripodi <http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk>.
We all (except grobmeier :P) like the mvn style (brought by
checkstyle-plugin) and we are comfortable on working with it. No one
else committed on OGNL.
So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting
a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons
people (mainly Struts guys) is interested.
Concluding: PMD, findbugs and checkstyle by default: +1; deciding
which style has to be applied: -1. Good practice are one thing, strict
rules are different.
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Unlike Commons, you have to be granted permission to commit at other projects at the ASF and each of them have their own PMC and build their own communities. Commons is a single community and thus it makes sense for developers to be able to easily switch between sub projects. Having commonality between the projects encourages that as it means you don't have to figure out what style settings you need as you switch between projects.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I continue seeing it an imposition that can be avoided, since not
>>> everybody commits in each component.
>>> I switched across components and I just respected the original code
>>> format (well, not always true, because I reformatted Discovery and
>>> still regret for it) - that doesn't mean that style was always the
>>> same, since each component defined its own config (and often the
>>> exception rules)
>>>
>>> If a common style has to be applied to all commons components, IMHO a
>>> VOTE should be subjected to the PMC
>>
>> I agree with that. However, there is nothing wrong with discussing it first to see if a vote is even warranted.
>
> If the question is to have a common commons codestyle, so yes. I think
> public projects should follow standards. And there are sun/oracle
> coding conventions.
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Common checkstyle (was Re: [vfs] checkstyle)
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>> Unlike Commons, you have to be granted permission to commit at other projects at the ASF and each of them have their own PMC and build their own communities. Commons is a single community and thus it makes sense for developers to be able to easily switch between sub projects. Having commonality between the projects encourages that as it means you don't have to figure out what style settings you need as you switch between projects.
>>>
>>
>> I continue seeing it an imposition that can be avoided, since not
>> everybody commits in each component.
>> I switched across components and I just respected the original code
>> format (well, not always true, because I reformatted Discovery and
>> still regret for it) - that doesn't mean that style was always the
>> same, since each component defined its own config (and often the
>> exception rules)
>>
>> If a common style has to be applied to all commons components, IMHO a
>> VOTE should be subjected to the PMC
>
> I agree with that. However, there is nothing wrong with discussing it first to see if a vote is even warranted.
If the question is to have a common commons codestyle, so yes. I think
public projects should follow standards. And there are sun/oracle
coding conventions.
Cheers
Christian
>
> Ralph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org