Maybe a table (feature x option): Feature| | | Option | F1 | F2 | description -------+----+----+-------------- Opt1 | X | - | bla bla Opt2 | O | O | blub blub
X - required O - supported - - not supported Jan -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Bilgin Ibryam [mailto:bibr...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2013 15:24 An: dev@camel.apache.org Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release Guys, thanks for fixing the CS and other issues with the Redis component. I didn't mentioned the new component on the release or components page because it doesn't have documentation yet. But I've assigned CAMEL-6001 and will be working on the documentation these days. I'd love to see the new component in the coming Camel release. PS: the reason I postponed the doc page so far is that the component supports many commands - around 80 and each command might have different set of parameters, so not sure how to document it in a clever way. The only way that comes into mind is list each command with its possible parameters and return types, but that will be a long and slow process. Any other ideas? Thanks Bilgin > 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-re > lea > >>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: cib...@redhat.com > >Web: http://fusesource.com > >Twitter: davsclaus > >Blog: http://davsclaus.com > >Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen > > >
