Hi Raúl, Yes you're right! I was not aware of this //CHECKSTYLE:OFF | ON feature. Thanks for the hint!
Babak Raul Kripalani wrote > Isn't it less intrusive to wrap this block in //CHECKSTYLE:OFF and > //CHECKSTYLE:ON? > > If it's really just the one-off case, changing the checkstyle rule for the > entire codebase seems overkill. > > Regards, > Raúl. > On 23 Jan 2013 22:18, "Babak Vahdat" < > babak.vahdat@ > > wrote: > >> >> >> Am 23.01.13 16:16 schrieb "Claus Ibsen" unter < > claus.ibsen@ > >: >> >> >On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Babak Vahdat >> >< > babak.vahdat@ > > wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> Recently Bilgin did kindly integrate his camel-redis component @ >> GitHub >> >>to >> >> the Camel distribution, however I think currently we don't own any >> >>proper >> >> documentation for it when 2.11.0 goes live: >> >> >> >> http://camel.apache.org/components.html >> >> >> > >> >Ah well spotted. Feel free to log a JIRA ticket about the missing docs. >> > >> > >> >> It's also missing by the release notes as a new component: >> >> >> >> http://camel.apache.org/camel-2110-release.html >> > >> >Yeah maybe add a note to the doc JIRA about adding to release notes. >> >And we may also need an karaf feature for it in features.xml. >> > >> >And osgi unit tests as well. >> >> Logged the following 2 tickets regarding this: >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-6001 >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-6002 >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Currently it has got a CS violation where a method by >> >>CommandDispatcher.java >> >> is 303 lines long (maximum allowed is 200). We could either adjust the >> >>code >> >> or the CS rule for that. >> >> >> > >> >And fell free to fix any CS issues you may encounter reported by the >> >maven tooling. >> >> Actually yesterday I had already fixed all of the CS violations on the >> trunk other than this one (on purpose) as I wanted to ask others about >> their opinion before going for it: >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1437208 >> >> As this one is different (302 lines of code in one method instead of the >> maximally allowed 200). I propose to relax the checkstyle rule about >> this, >> let's say 350 lines instead of 200. Then this would already fix this last >> violation automatically. The other option would be to split that method >> into 2 or 3 sub-methods but looking at the logic of that method IMHO this >> wouldn't make much sense. >> >> Following is the checkstyle setting we've got for this: >> >> > <module name="MethodLength"> >> > <property name="max" value="200"/> >> > <property name="countEmpty" value="false"/> >> > </module> >> >> >> Babak >> >> > >> > >> >> Babak >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Moving-towards-Camel-2-11-relea >> >>se-tp5725088p5726054.html >> >> Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Claus Ibsen >> >----------------- >> >Red Hat, Inc. >> >FuseSource is now part of Red Hat >> >Email: > cibsen@ >> >Web: http://fusesource.com >> >Twitter: davsclaus >> >Blog: http://davsclaus.com >> >Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen >> >> >> -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Moving-towards-Camel-2-11-release-tp5725088p5726109.html Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
