Concerning question 2 Tabs vs. Spaces, in case of spaces we would have to decide on the number of spaces, too. The Google Java style says to use a 2 space indentation, which is in my opinion sufficient to distinguish different indentations levels from each other. Furthermore, it would save some space.
I would not vote -1 if we keep tabs. On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for adding restriction for Javadoc at least at the header of public > classes and methods. > > We did the exercise in Twill and seemed to work pretty well. > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I don't think lazily adding comments will work. However, I'm fine with > > adding all the checkstyle rules one module at a time (with a jira > > issue to keep track of the modules already converted). It's not going > > to happen that we lazily add comments because that's the reason why > > comments are missing in the first place... > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Could we make certain rules to give warning instead of error? > >> > >> This would allow us to cherry-pick certain rules we would like people > >> to follow but not strictly enforced. > >> > >> - Henry > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> I don't think a "let add comments to everything" effort gives us good > >>> comments, actually. It just gives us checkmark comments that make the > rules > >>> pass. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Sure, I don't expect it to be free. > >>>> But everybody should be aware of the cost of adding this code style, > i.e., > >>>> spending a huge amount of time on reformatting and documenting code. > >>>> > >>>> Alternatively, we could drop the JavaDocs rule and make the transition > >>>> significantly cheaper. > >>>> > >>>> 2015-10-22 15:24 GMT+02:00 Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org>: > >>>> > >>>> > There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch and code style. > >>>> > > >>>> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org > > > >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > > I think we have to document all these classes. Code Style doesn't > come > >>>> > > for free :) > >>>> > > > >>>> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com > > > >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > > > Any ideas how to deal with the mandatory JavaDoc rule for > existing > >>>> > code? > >>>> > > > Just adding empty headers to make the checkstyle pass or start a > >>>> > serious > >>>> > > > effort to add the missing docs? > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > 2015-10-21 13:31 GMT+02:00 Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org>: > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > >> Agreed. That's the reason why I am in favor of using vanilla > Google > >>>> > code > >>>> > > >> style. > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> On 10/21/2015 12:31 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote: > >>>> > > >> > We started out originally with mixed tab/spaces, but it > ended up > >>>> > with > >>>> > > >> > people mixing spaces and tabs arbitrarily, and there is > little way > >>>> > to > >>>> > > >> > enforce Matthias' specific suggestion via checkstyle. > >>>> > > >> > That's why we dropped spaces alltogether... > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Gyula Fóra < > >>>> gyula.f...@gmail.com> > >>>> > > >> wrote: > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> >> I think the nice thing about a common codestyle is that > everyone > >>>> > can > >>>> > > set > >>>> > > >> >> the template in the IDE and use the formatting commands. > >>>> > > >> >> > >>>> > > >> >> Matthias's suggestion makes this practically impossible so > -1 for > >>>> > > mixed > >>>> > > >> >> tabs/spaces from my side. > >>>> > > >> >> > >>>> > > >> >> Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> ezt írta (időpont: > 2015. okt. > >>>> > > 21., > >>>> > > >> Sze, > >>>> > > >> >> 11:46): > >>>> > > >> >> > >>>> > > >> >>> I actually like tabs a lot, however, in a "mixed" style > together > >>>> > > with > >>>> > > >> >>> spaces. Example: > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> myVar.callMethod(param1, // many more > >>>> > > >> >>> .................paramX); // the dots mark space > >>>> indention > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> indenting "paramX" with tabs does not give nice aliment. > Not > >>>> sure > >>>> > if > >>>> > > >> >>> this would be a feasible compromise to keeps tabs in > general, > >>>> but > >>>> > > use > >>>> > > >> >>> space for cases as above. > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> If this in no feasible compromise, I would prefer space to > get > >>>> the > >>>> > > >> >>> correct indention in examples as above. Even if this > result in a > >>>> > > >> >>> complete reformatting of the whole code. > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> Why this? Everybody can set this in it's IDE/editor as > he/she > >>>> > > wishes... > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>> If we keep tabs, we will have to specify the line length > >>>> > relative > >>>> > > to > >>>> > > >> a > >>>> > > >> >>> tab > >>>> > > >> >>>>> size (like 4). > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> -Matthias > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> On 10/21/2015 11:06 AM, Ufuk Celebi wrote: > >>>> > > >> >>>> To summarize up to this point: > >>>> > > >> >>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>> - All are in favour of Google check style (with the > following > >>>> > > possible > >>>> > > >> >>>> exceptions) > >>>> > > >> >>>> - Proposed exceptions so far: > >>>> > > >> >>>> * Specific line length 100 vs. 120 characters > >>>> > > >> >>>> * Keep tabs instead converting to spaces (this would > >>>> translate > >>>> > to > >>>> > > >> >>>> skipping/coming up with some indentation rules as well) > >>>> > > >> >>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>> If we keep tabs, we will have to specify the line length > >>>> relative > >>>> > > to a > >>>> > > >> >>> tab > >>>> > > >> >>>> size (like 4). > >>>> > > >> >>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>> Let’s keep the discussion going a little longer. I think > it has > >>>> > > >> >> proceeded > >>>> > > >> >>>> in a very reasonable manner so far. Thanks for this! > >>>> > > >> >>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>> – Ufuk > >>>> > > >> >>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Fabian Hueske < > >>>> > fhue...@gmail.com > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > >> >>> wrote: > >>>> > > >> >>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>> Thanks Max for checking the modifications by the Google > code > >>>> > > style. > >>>> > > >> >>>>> It is very good to know, that the impact on the code base > >>>> would > >>>> > > not > >>>> > > >> be > >>>> > > >> >>> too > >>>> > > >> >>>>> massive. If the Google code style would have touched > almost > >>>> > every > >>>> > > >> >> line, > >>>> > > >> >>> I > >>>> > > >> >>>>> would have been in favor of converting to spaces. > However, > >>>> your > >>>> > > >> >>> assessment > >>>> > > >> >>>>> is a strong argument to continue with tabs, IMO. > >>>> > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>> Regarding the line length limit, I personally find 100 > chars > >>>> too > >>>> > > >> >> narrow > >>>> > > >> >>> but > >>>> > > >> >>>>> would be +1 for having a limit. > >>>> > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>> +1 for discussing the Scala style in a separate thread. > >>>> > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>> Fabian > >>>> > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>> 2015-10-20 18:12 GMT+02:00 Maximilian Michels < > m...@apache.org > >>>> >: > >>>> > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> I'm a little less excited about this. You might not be > aware > >>>> > but, > >>>> > > >> for > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> a large portion of the source code, we already follow > the > >>>> > Google > >>>> > > >> >> style > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> guide. The main changes will be tabs->spaces and 80/100 > >>>> > > characters > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> line limit. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> Out of curiosity, I ran the official Google Style > Checkstyle > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> configuration to confirm my suspicion: > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/master/src/main/resources/google_checks.xml > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> The changes are very little if we turn off line length > limit > >>>> > and > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> tabs-to-spaces conversion. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> There are some things I really like about the Google > style, > >>>> > e.g. > >>>> > > >> >> every > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> class has to have a JavaDoc and spaces after keywords > (can't > >>>> > > stand > >>>> > > >> if > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> there aren't any). I'm not sure if we should change > tabs to > >>>> > > spaces, > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> because it means touching almost every single line of > code. > >>>> > > However, > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> if we keep the tabs, we cannot make use of the different > >>>> > > indention > >>>> > > >> >> for > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> case statements or wrapped lines...maybe that's a > compromise > >>>> we > >>>> > > can > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> live with. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> If we introduce the Google Style for Java, will we also > >>>> impose > >>>> > a > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> stricter style check for Scala? IMHO the line length is > the > >>>> > > >> strictest > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> part of the Scala Checkstyle. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Henry Saputra < > >>>> > > >> >>> henry.sapu...@gmail.com> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> wrote: > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>> 1) yes. Been dancing this issue for a while. Let's > pull the > >>>> > > >> trigger. > >>>> > > >> >>>>> Did > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>> the exercise with Tachyon while back and did help > >>>> readability > >>>> > > and > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>> homogeneity of code. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>> 2) +1 for Google Java style with documented exceptions > and > >>>> > > >> >> explanation > >>>> > > >> >>>>> on > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>> why. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015, Ufuk Celebi < > u...@apache.org> > >>>> > > wrote: > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER: This is not my personal idea, but a > community > >>>> > > >> >> discussion > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> from > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> some time ago. Don't kill the messenger. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> In March we were discussing issues with heterogeneity > of > >>>> the > >>>> > > code > >>>> > > >> >>> [1]. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> The > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> summary is that we had a consensus to enforce a > stricter > >>>> code > >>>> > > >> style > >>>> > > >> >>> on > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> our > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> Java code base in order to make it easier to switch > between > >>>> > > >> >> projects > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> and to > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> have clear rules for new contributions. The main > proposal > >>>> in > >>>> > > the > >>>> > > >> >> last > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> discussion was to go with Google's Java code style. > Not all > >>>> > > were > >>>> > > >> >>> fully > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> satisfied with this, but still everyone agreed on > some kind > >>>> > of > >>>> > > >> >> style. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> I think the upcoming 0.10 release is a good point to > >>>> finally > >>>> > go > >>>> > > >> >>>>> through > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> with these changes (right after the > release/branch-off). > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> I propose to go with Google's Java code style [2] as > >>>> proposed > >>>> > > >> >>> earlier. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> PROs: > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> - Clear style guide available > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> - Tooling like checkstyle rules, IDE plugins already > >>>> > available > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> CONs: > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> - Fully breaks our current style > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> The main problem with this will be open pull requests, > >>>> which > >>>> > > will > >>>> > > >> >> be > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> harder > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> to merge after all the changes. On the other hand, > should > >>>> > pull > >>>> > > >> >>>>> requests > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> that have been open for a long time block this? Most > of the > >>>> > > >> >> important > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> changes will be merged for the release anyways. I > think in > >>>> > the > >>>> > > >> long > >>>> > > >> >>>>> run > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> we > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> will gain more than we loose by this (more homogenous > code, > >>>> > > clear > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> rules). > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> And it is questionable whether we will ever be able > to do > >>>> > such > >>>> > > a > >>>> > > >> >>>>> change > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> in > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> the future if we cannot do it now. The project will > most > >>>> > likely > >>>> > > >> >> grow > >>>> > > >> >>>>> and > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> attract more contributors, at which point it will be > even > >>>> > > harder > >>>> > > >> to > >>>> > > >> >>>>> do. > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> Please make sure to answer the following points in the > >>>> > > discussion: > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> 1) Are you (still) in favour of enforcing stricter > rules on > >>>> > the > >>>> > > >> >> Java > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> codebase? > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> 2) If yes, would you be OK with the Google's Java code > >>>> style? > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> – Ufuk > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> [1] > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201503.mbox/%3ccanc1h_von0b5omnwzxchtyzwhakeghbzvquyk7s9o2a36b8...@mail.gmail.com%3e > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> [2] > https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html > >>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > > >> >>>> > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >>> > >>>> > > >> >> > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> >
