Probably you should make it crystal clear that the critiques are aesthetic ones and they have really low impact on ZooKeeper from a functional perspective, probably they only affect, to some extent, the development speed and the community (steep learning curve for a new contributor).
You should not forget that ZooKeeper solves some hard distributed systems problems and does it really well. +1 for "code quality is important, and there are things we should keep in mind, but in general i really don't like the idea of risking code breakage because of a gratuitous code cleanup" Just my two cents, -- Andrei Savu / andreisavu.ro On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Thomas Koch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I finished(?) the slides for BerlinBuzzWords: > http://koch.ro/temp/zookeeper.pdf > > The last section is "praise and rant". I added some well deserved praise about > zookeeper: > *right balance: functionality vs. usability > *turn key ready server > *bindings to other languages > *large user base > *proven scalability > > These good points about ZooKeeper became more clear to me after I learned > about JGroups. The JGroups author lives in my home town and we had a chat last > week. We'll meet again, because he wants to learn what this "ZooKeeper" thing > is everybody asks him about. > > Still I included a small but serious list of some of my critiques about > ZooKeeper. You may find the slides about the PMD results interesting. My > favourites are: > > * NPath/cyclomatic complexity > * Assigning an Object to null is a code smell. *Consider refactoring.* > * Avoid really long methods. > * This class has too many methods, *consider refactoring* it. > * A high ratio of statements to labels in a switch statement. *Consider > refactoring.* > * Avoid empty catch blocks. > * Avoid really long parameter lists. > * (Class has) Too many fields. > > Best regards, > > Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro >
