Excellent Idea - I'll do that monday to give you guys the weekend to do any last minute code cleaning you want.
---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:30:02 +0300 > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > From: ita...@code972.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Prescott - we could make an RC and push it to Nuget as a PreRelease, to get > real feedback. > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a > > terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy > > consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say > > monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below > > > > > > > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required. > > > > > > this.blah = blah; <- required this. > > > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like. > > > > > > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to > > double check. > > > > I'd error with consistency > > > > > > > > > > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars. > > > > > > blah vs. _blah > > > > > > > > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to): > > > > > > _blah = blah; > > > > > > > > > For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not > > CLR compliant > > > > > > > However, that seems to violate the adopted style. > > > > > > 3) Full qualification of type names. > > > > > > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or > > remove them? > > > > > > > I try to remove them > > > > > 4) Removing unreferenced classes. > > > > > > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come > > across so far are private. > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never > > used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a > > conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there > > aren't too many of these.. > > > > > 5) var vs. explicit > > > > > > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final > > disposition. FWIW, I prefer var. > > > > > > > I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I > > usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that > > makes it unclear what the return value is: > > > > > > var items = search.GetResults(); > > > > vs > > > > IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer > > > > > > > > > > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like > > artifacts of code generation: > > > > > > 6) Weird param names. > > > > > > Param1 vs. directory > > > > > > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name > > like 'directory'. > > > > > > > Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a > > full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially > > break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and > > push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes, > > I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6. > > > > > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions. > > > > > > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It > > feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go > > back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much > > more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do > > that. > > > > > > > I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java > > version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we > > have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around. > > > > > > > > > If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the > > documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate > > the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are > > willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it. > > > > > > > I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that > > conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for us > > to build rules though. > > > > > - Zack > > > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote: > > > > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and > > trying > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly, > > removing > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left. > > > > > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some > > recent > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit > > more > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it). > > > > >
