Well, Based on your feedback, the easiest and probably best solution is to keep the default for Eclipse (so, no need for a special config file) and to configure IntelliJ code style (it is the same file for all) to do the same as Eclipse, which will avoid confusion:
import java.* import javax.* import org.* import com.* This choice already have a +1 from Marius, a +1 from Sergiu and here is my +1. I do not think we need long discussion on this, just an agreement, please could you cast your vote on this. Denis On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 16:13, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/21/2010 04:04 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: > > On 06/21/2010 02:36 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 13:24, Marius Dumitru Florea< > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Denis, > >>> > >>> On 06/21/2010 01:55 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > >>>> Hi Devs, > >>>> > >>>> Currently we do not have any code style specification for imports. To > >>>> improve clarity of our commits, I propose that we decide once for all > how > >>> we > >>>> would like to have imports. Of course, normalisation of existing code > >>> will > >>>> come with normal commit, I do not intend to update it only for that. > >>> > >>> Are you saying that > >>> > >>> > http://svn.xwiki.org/svnroot/xwiki/platform/xwiki-tools/trunk/xwiki-verification-resources/src/main/resources/codestyle-eclipse.xml > >>> doesn't include information about import styles? > >>> > >> > >> Sorry, I do not have Eclipse, maybe Thomas could precise this point. > >> What I am saying is that we do not have any written code style for that, > and > >> we use the default of the IDE. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Currently, > >>>> > >>>> Eclipse does java.*, org.*, com.* separated by blank lines > >>>> IntelliJ IDEA does com.*,org.* together, than a blank line and java.* > >>> > >>> So you're saying that codestyle-eclipse.xml and codestyle-idea.xml are > >>> not consistent? > >>> > >> > >> There are not, probably because we have never look at it and their > defaults > >> differ. > > > > I see. It's clear now. > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>>> Old existing code has there own ordering... > >>>> > >>>> I propose the following style: > >>>> > >>>> import java.* > >>>> > >>>> import org.* > >>>> import com.* > >>>> import<anything else> > >>>> > > > >>>> import org.xwiki.* > >>>> import com.xpn.* > > > > I don't think separating this imports from org.* and com.* makes them > > much more visible. Also, for classes that don't depend on the old core > > (com.xpn.*) moving org.xwiki.* out of org.* breaks the order. Since > > we'll eventually drop the com.xpn.* package in favor of org.xwiki.* I > > think we should keep XWiki's imports under org.* and com.* . > > > > I'm +1 for enforcing a style for imports. I'm -0 for separating > > org.xwiki.* and com.xpn.* from org.* and com.* respectively. > > > > Same as Marius. > > > > >>>> > >>>> import static<any> > >>>> > >>>> If we agree on this, necessary IDE setup for both Eclipse and IntelliJ > >>>> should be prepare/updated. I will take IntelliJ in charge, a volunteer > >>> for > >>>> Eclipse is welcome (Thomas?) > >>> > >>> You mean update codestyle-eclipse.xml and codestyle-idea.xml ? > >>> > >> > >> Yes, and if this is not part of codestyle-eclipse, provide what is > required > >> to have both IDE in sync. > >> > >> Denis > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Marius > >>> > >>>> > >>>> WDYT ? > >>>> > >>>> Denis > >>>> > > > -- > Sergiu Dumitriu > http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
