I do have one question for Anne, is this serialization configurable ?
In other words can I switch off this behaviour if I don't want it?
(Pardon me for not going through the code to figure this out )
I also share the same concerns as Deepal about code conventions.
No matter what coding convention was followed, point 5 is a definite no no.
Sanjiva, I am glad that you are requesting some benchmarking, I was
consistently proposing that Anne should subject this code through some high
volume message scenarios to figure out the performance impact.
The basis for my objections was that the overhead introduced by this
feature, out weighs the benefits of it. YMMV
Rajith
On 1/29/07, Deepal Jayasinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bill,
>
>>Among the all , the most worst thing I saw in the code is following kind
>>of things, I strongly believe we should not have this kind of code in
>>the code base, If you found such kind of code please point out them then
>>and there.
>>
>> - String tmpClassNameStr = "null"; (is this the way we initialize to
>>NULL )
>> - String tmpHasList = "no list"
>> - Unnecessary casting
>> - A number of unused variables
>> - Variable declarations here and there (as an example private static
>>final String - selfManagedDataDelimiter = "*";)
>>
>>
>
>I'm indifferent on the first two; in some cases it makes the code easier
>to read and debug at the cost of an assignment and space in the string
>table.
>
Well , more focus should be for code readability than debugging .
>The third one should be caught by any decent compiler and
>eliminated (so long as you're not casting back and forth) and again
>sometimes enhances readability so I'm indifferent on this one as well.
>I agree on the fourth -- I don't think that there's ever a good case for
>extraneous variables. The fifth is again a code readability issue and
>one of the reasons that Java doesn't require that you declare everything
>up front.
>
>
Thank's for trying to clarify all these points. Just hope not everybody
will start writing code like this :-)
BTW in point 5, I was talking about class level 'public static'
variables, not method level variables.
For e.g.
class {
public static v1;
method1 ();
public static v2();
method2();
}
I dont think this is the way to go.
Deepal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
