Agree, but first show us the modified pretty settings file and if everyone's happy apply it. Regarding logging, I think we don't interfere with each other in MODULE_RAFACTORING_BRANCH, so go ahead.
Ara. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:xdoclet-devel- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mathias Bogaert > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 11:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Xdoclet-devel] Common source file header > > So can I proceed on this? I would like to make the coding convention > change > together with the logging refactoring. > I will change the pretty.settings, apply it to the source code, change the > logging stuff to jakarta commons (and no more isDebugEnabled() checks) and > commit. > > Everyone agrees? I will do it this weekend. > > Mathias > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ara Abrahamian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Mathias Bogaert'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 1:21 PM > Subject: RE: [Xdoclet-devel] Common source file header > > > > Good idea and actually I was thinking about creating a coding convention > > doc and once and for all settle on a single coding convention and > > <pretty/> settings. Honestly I hate the @todo-javadoc blabla stuff Aslak > > added to the settings :-) A mix of elements of java style + ant's > > convention + our rules. > > > > Ara. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:xdoclet-devel- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mathias Bogaert > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:33 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [Xdoclet-devel] Common source file header > > > > > > IMHO we should have a common header for all source (java) files > > stating > > > the > > > name of the class, and optionally a description. It should also state > > the > > > license and > > > indicate where users can find the license. > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > /* > > > * Title: DocletSupport > > > * Description: > > > * > > > * This software is published under the terms of the BSD Software > > License, > > > * of which a copy has been included with thisdistribution in the > > > LICENSE.txt file. > > > */ > > > > > > package xdoclet; > > > ... > > > > > > What license does XDoclet have? the BSD license? all of the files? > > > > > > Mathias > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Xdoclet-devel mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xdoclet-devel mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply > the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ > Xdoclet-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
