4 +1, 1 +0, 0 -1; applied XTVERIFICATIONS-10 in r29627
Denis
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:07, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
+0
Thanks
-Vincent
On Jun 22, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
Well,
Based on your feedback, the easiest and probably best solution is to keep
the default for Eclipse (so, no need for a special config file) and to
configure IntelliJ code style (it is the same file for all) to do the
same
as Eclipse, which will avoid confusion:
import java.*
import javax.*
import org.*
import com.*
This choice already have a +1 from Marius, a +1 from Sergiu and here is
my
+1.
I do not think we need long discussion on this, just an agreement, please
could you cast your vote on this.
Denis
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 16:13, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 04:04 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>> On 06/21/2010 02:36 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 13:24, Marius Dumitru Florea<
>>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Denis,
>>>>
>>>> On 06/21/2010 01:55 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
>>>>> Hi Devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently we do not have any code style specification for imports.
To
>>>>> improve clarity of our
commits, I propose that we decide once for
all
> how
>>>> we
>>>>> would like to have imports. Of course, normalisation of existing
code
>>>> will
>>>>> come with normal commit, I do not intend to update it only for that.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that
>>>>
>>>>
>
http://svn.xwiki.org/svnroot/xwiki/platform/xwiki-tools/trunk/xwiki-verific…
>>>> doesn't include information
about import styles?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I do not have Eclipse, maybe Thomas could precise this point.
>>> What I am saying is that we do not have any written code style for
that,
> and
>>> we use the default of the IDE.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently,
>>>>>
>>>>> Eclipse does java.*, org.*, com.* separated by blank lines
>>>>> IntelliJ IDEA does com.*,org.* together, than a blank line and
java.*
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying that codestyle-eclipse.xml and codestyle-idea.xml
are
>>>> not consistent?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are not, probably because we have never look at it and their
> defaults
>>> differ.
>>
>> I see. It's clear now.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Old existing code has there own ordering...
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose the following style:
>>>>>
>>>>> import java.*
>>>>>
>>>>> import org.*
>>>>> import com.*
>>>>> import<anything else>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> import org.xwiki.*
>>>>> import com.xpn.*
>>
>> I don't think separating this imports from org.* and com.* makes them
>> much more visible. Also, for classes that don't depend on the old core
>> (com.xpn.*) moving org.xwiki.* out of org.* breaks the order. Since
>> we'll eventually drop the com.xpn.* package in favor of org.xwiki.* I
>> think we should keep XWiki's imports under org.* and com.* .
>>
>> I'm +1 for enforcing a style for imports. I'm -0 for separating
>> org.xwiki.* and com.xpn.* from org.* and com.* respectively.
>>
>
> Same as Marius.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> import static<any>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we agree on this, necessary IDE setup for both Eclipse and
IntelliJ
>>>>> should be prepare/updated. I
will take IntelliJ in charge, a
volunteer
>>>> for
>>>>> Eclipse is welcome (Thomas?)
>>>>
>>>> You mean update codestyle-eclipse.xml and codestyle-idea.xml ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, and if this is not part of codestyle-eclipse, provide what is
> required
>>> to have both IDE in sync.
>>>
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marius
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Denis
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs