I know we want, at some point, to have a "better" code style enforced through maven checkstyle plugin. In the meantime, and if we already know which style we'll use, shouldn't just go back to it whenever we have a question like this ? it would save us a lot of time.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Chris Westin <[email protected]> wrote: > For the special case of the logger, I kind of like it this way, because I > can turn it off just by commenting out a single line (to get rid of > unreferenced variable warnings), or add it by pasting in or uncommenting a > single line. In either case I don't have to worry about removing or adding > the import line separately, which can be quite far away if there are a lot > of imports. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Daniel Barclay <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > For logger member declarations, can we drop the current pattern of using > > qualified names (like this: > > > > private static final org.slf4j.Logger logger = > > org.slf4j.LoggerFactory.getLogger(StoragePluginRegistry.class); > > > > ) and allow using imports and non-qualified names (as we do for almost > > everything else)? > > > > > > Using qualified names adds a lot of visual noise, and pushes the class > > literal farther to the right, making it easier to fail to notice that > > it doesn't match the containing class. > > > > Thanks, > > Daniel > > -- > > Daniel Barclay > > MapR Technologies > > > -- Abdelhakim Deneche Software Engineer <http://www.mapr.com/> Now Available - Free Hadoop On-Demand Training <http://www.mapr.com/training?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Signature&utm_campaign=Free%20available>
