From: Arnold, C. <Cur...@hy...> - 2002-02-28 16:57:45
|
I finally got some time to work on the cpptasks in the last few days and hopefully can put everything back together and commit this weekend. Hopefully, the big performance gain will be chunky compilation. The current task spawns a new process for each compiled file, I expect to substantially reduce the number of process creations by compiling groups of files. On another note, quite a bit of the existing code used underscore prefixed names (_foo) for member variables and placed member variable declarations at the bottom of the class definition. Both are contrary to my reading of the current Java Code conventions (http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc2.html#1852 and http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc8.html#367) to which I believe that tasks integrated into Ant must adhere. Is there any publically available checker for code conventions conformance? I've looked before and haven't found one. I'm trying to adhere to the conventions on new classes that I'm adding and classes that I've seriously modified so the style within any individual .java file is consistent. |
From: Stefan B. <bo...@bo...> - 2002-02-28 17:08:48
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Curt Arnold <Cur...@hy...> wrote: > On another note, quite a bit of the existing code used underscore > prefixed names (_foo) for member variables and placed member > variable declarations at the bottom of the class definition. Both > are contrary to my reading of the current Java Code conventions They are. > to which I believe that tasks integrated into Ant must adhere. Formally you are correct, but Ant committers are known to let different coding styles slip through. > Is there any publically available checker for code conventions > conformance? I've looked before and haven't found one. Several, but I've never used one myself. There is a sourceforge project named checkstyle which can be run via an Ant task as well (see Ant's external tools page), AFAIK it can be adapted to several styles but will use the current Java Coding Conventions as its default. > I'm trying to adhere to the conventions on new classes that I'm > adding and classes that I've seriously modified so the style within > any individual .java file is consistent. Maybe committing it in two passes would be better - one to get the style right and one where others can easily identify your code changes. Personally I tend to keep the style of the original and even try to mimic it when I add code, with some exceptions - tabs are getting killed no matter what. Stefan |
From: Adam M. <ada...@ya...> - 2002-03-01 08:52:06
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: ant...@li... > [mailto:ant...@li...]On Behalf Of > Arnold, Curt > Sent: Friday, 1 March 2002 2:58 AM > To: 'ant...@li...' > Subject: [Ant-contrib-developers] <cc> rework, Java coding styles > > > I finally got some time to work on the cpptasks in the last few days and > hopefully can put everything back together and commit this weekend. > > Hopefully, the big performance gain will be chunky compilation. > The current > task spawns a new process for each compiled file, I expect to > substantially > reduce the number of process creations by compiling groups of files. > Excellent. How does it deal with linktype="none"? Probably time for another alpha release after that gets committed. > On another note, quite a bit of the existing code used underscore prefixed > names (_foo) for member variables and placed member variable > declarations at > the bottom of the class definition. Both are contrary to my > reading of the > current Java Code conventions > (http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc2.html#1852 and > http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc8.html#367) to > which I believe that tasks integrated into Ant must adhere. > That's my fault. I can tidy that up. I'll wait until you do your commit. Adam |
From: Curt A. <ca...@ho...> - 2002-03-01 16:39:05
|
Adam Murdoch: > Excellent. How does it deal with linktype="none"? Have no clue. I started the rework with the compile phase and have just commented out the link phase and haven't put it back yet. Was there a particular issue that you anticipated? |