Hi Keith,

> I just committed my first code change.  I figured that since the issue had
> already been discussed, there was no need for further review.  On this and
> other issues I'm making my best guesses about how to do things the team's
> way.  If I screw up, feel free to correct me. ;)

Not correcting, just a minor objection (not your fault, it's not like it's
documented anywhere). I think that it makes a bit more sense to put a key
for resourceName into an interface class with String constants, than putting
the key name in the Metadata class. To me, any key name that you need to
reference outside of the Metadata class, should not be part of Metadata
itself. The Metadata class implements interfaces so that it can inherit such
externally used keys. In the case of resourceName, I'm not sure exactly what
that has to do with a generic Metadata container. Could we think of a better
place to put it, e.g., if it has to do with the parsers, wouldn't it make
more sense perhaps to create a TikaParseKeys interface within
org.apache.tika.metadata, and then have the Metadata class implement that
interface? 


> 
> By the way, how do you feel about changing little things in the files along
> the way?  For example, my IDE, Intellij Idea, enables me to switch to Java 5
> for loop syntax by the click of a single button.  Would it be ok to do that
> kind of thing, if I'm already committing that file anyway?

I favor, small incremental patches/commit that fix the problem as defined,
and nothing else really. So if issue TIKA-XXX reports a problem A, and you
commit a fix that fixes A, but that additionally reformats some files (say
you did it correctly and those files weren't using spaces for indentation,
they were using tabs), I would object to such a commit because you're mixing
2 things, and the actual changes are harder to track. If your IntelliJ is
telling you things about Tika to refactor loops to make the code more
readable, I would prefer you create an issue for that, and then we can track
your progress/commits on that specific issue, as opposed to attaching a
rider to the bill ;)

Cheers,
  Chris


> 
> Thanks,
> Keith

______________________________________________
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cognizant Development Engineer
Early Detection Research Network Project

_________________________________________________
Jet Propulsion Laboratory            Pasadena, CA
Office: 171-266B                     Mailstop:  171-246
_______________________________________________________

Disclaimer:  The opinions presented within are my own and do not reflect
those of either NASA, JPL, or the California Institute of Technology.


Reply via email to