Hi Konrad,
sounds good. Is there already some blueprint available that you have in
mind? I don't want to invent the wheel again, sort of a good template would
be fine. Other Apache projects, maybe?
Have fun,
JensG
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Konrad Grochowski
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:27 AM
To: dev@thrift.apache.org
Subject: Re: coding standards
Oh, I really hope, that for most langs, standards will be like "Please
follow default settings/guidelines for XYZ lang, found at:
http://go.to.xyz.manual.com";. I've just added all those tasks for
consistency. Especially if we're going with Roger's suggestion about
lib/$lang/ReadMe.md - then it would be nice to be consistent with lib
layout and avoid mails to dev@ like "I saw that lang X has some
guidelines, but Y does not, should I keep to standard ones or..."
Regards,
Konrad
W dniu 2014-09-26 19:51, Jens Geyer pisze:
Hi Konrad,
for C#, Go and Haxe the IDEs and/or toolchains (gofmt) already a certain
style that is commonly accepted. Especially for Go it is a deliberate part
of the design. Would that suffice or do we need just another doc?
Where I agree is Delphi, because the Emba style guide and defaults are the
last thing I will ever use. I already have that point on my TODO list.
Have fun,
JensG
________________________________
Von: Jens Geyer
Gesendet: 26.09.2014 18:34
An: dev@thrift.apache.org
Betreff: AW: C++ coding standards
That was exactly what I felt.
________________________________
Von: Rush Manbert
Gesendet: 26.09.2014 17:44
An: dev@thrift.apache.org
Betreff: Re: C++ coding standards
I think this veers off into territory that should be avoided for this
project.
I am not against having coding standards. Not at all. But Thrift is a
fairly mature product. Disregarding new language support, I suspect that
the bulk of the future coding required will be bug fixes. If that is true,
then the best thing to do is to preserve the style that you find in the
code you are modifying. The last thing I would want to see is that someone
fixes a bug in the compiler or adds a new feature and uses a style totally
foreign to what was originally used.
When I delve into the compiler code I remember that it has its
peculiarities and my mind shifts into "compiler dev mode". If I look at
the library code I gradually shift into "library dev mode". Neither of
those are what I prefer or dictate when I set the coding standards, but
they maintain the original style. That's a good thing. And Heaven forbid
if coding standards are written and someone decides to change existing
code to conform to them. You do NOT change working, tested code just
because you don't agree with its style. That's just asking for problems.
I don't usually play this card, but I am speaking from 42 years of
experience writing software. I feel that you're just going to waste time
and effort.
That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
- Rush
On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:28 AM, Ben Craig wrote:
I haven't seen any explicit coding standards. I have a minor preference
for using whatever the "local" style already is, but it isn't a large
concern of mine.
Konrad Grochowski <hc...@minions.org.pl> wrote on 09/26/2014 08:03:45 AM:
From: Konrad Grochowski <hc...@minions.org.pl>
To: dev@thrift.apache.org,
Date: 09/26/2014 08:04 AM
Subject: C++ coding standards
Hey,
Are C++ coding standards for thrift defined anywhere? I see that lib/cpp
looks like this 'ClassName::methodName' but compiler code look more like
't_class_name::method_name'. I definitely prefer first style, but
currently I'm playing around compiler. Can I use 'lib' style, assuming
that's more recent and compiler code will move toward that look?
-Konrad
