I would very much like to see this duplicated code feature improved. I think
it goes along with good refactoring so if it worked well it would be really
helpful. I see way too much duplicated code in the code reviews I have to do.
--
The only problem with doing it right the first time is that
Thanks for the heads-up... I didn't look to see what the complaints were
actually flagging... your right, rules like that definitely shouldn't be
enabled if that's the kind of thing it is going to catch... and that one
doesn't look configurable enough to get rid of those, and I certainly
don't want
>> > * PackageDeclaration
>> >This is almost a silly check frankly, but again, no harm no foul.
>>
>> Yes, this is silly. If Struts committers are checking in classes with
>> no package declaration, then I think we have bigger problems. ;-)
>>
>
> Such as "it won't work on a JDK 1.4 platform" :
On Tue, August 9, 2005 1:04 am, Martin Cooper said:
> You forgot FindBugs. It really does find bugs. ;-)
Your right, I did :) My builds at work do include it actually.
> Checkstyle is run from Maven, so whether or not we move to Checkstyle
> 3.5 right now depends on whether or not the Maven Chec
Frank W. Zammetti said:
> * StrictDuplicateCode
>Duplicate code is just plain bad... not in terms of something not
>working, although that is certainly possible in some
> situations, but
>it's just a sign of carelessness. If nothing else, I'm sure no one
>wants the Struts code bas
On 8/8/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/8/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > As per Ted's suggestion, this thread is meant to discuss updating the
> > Struts CheckStyle rules file as brought up in Bugzilla ticket #35956.
> >
> > My motivation
On 8/8/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> As per Ted's suggestion, this thread is meant to discuss updating the
> Struts CheckStyle rules file as brought up in Bugzilla ticket #35956.
>
> My motivation for this suggestion is because I wanted to do what I could
> to
Craig McClanahan wrote:
Although the general principle is sound, there can be a
counter-argument that cut-n-paste can sometimes avoid undesireable
cross-package dependencies. Most rules engines I've seen allow you to
create an exceptions list where the developers say "yes, I know this
violates t
In general, doing this sort of nagging on the developer list is
*exactly* the right thing to do for getting patches you believe in
moved forward :-). I'm not directly involved in Struts 1.3
development so I'll leave overall acceptance to others, but a couple
of general comments on your suggestions
