Java Code Conventions Update

[Franz van Betteraey]

I just noticed that there are two (very) old bug reports related to the
Code Conventions topic:

JDK-4785435 : bugs in CodeConventions on java.sun.com/docs/codeconv
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4785435

last comment:

    EVALUATION
    We no longer support this document, for it has been replaced by
Josh Bloch's book "Effective Java". This document served its purpose
when no other existed, but it has reached the end of its life.
    ###@###.### 2002-12-17



JDK-4797268 : Code conventions need to be updated
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4797268

last comment:

    EVALUATION
    Yes, we do need an updated code conventions doc. (20096-07-30)



Both are closed with the "Won't fix" resolution. I wonder whether the
document is to be kept up to date at all. If not it would be better to mark
it as deprecated and point to alternative (up-to-date) resources (if they
exist).

Regards
  Franz


2013/7/22 Franz van Betteraey <franz.van.betteraey at googlemail.com>

> Hi there,
>
> I find it very helpful that Java Code Conventions exist for a long time
> now. They really "improve the readability of the software, allowing
> engineers to understand new code more quickly and thoroughly" (from the
> Code Conventions web page).
>
> But while the Java language evolves the code conventions remain the same.
> Since the Java Code Conventions were last updated in 1999 several new Java
> language features were introduced including lambdas in the upcoming version
> of Java 8.
>
> Would it not be nice to update the Code Conventions so that we do not need
> to follow rules from the last century in Java 8 (which are not bad but
> probably missing relevant parts)?
>
> I wonder if (or where) someone could make an "official" request for this.
> Dalibor Topic suggested to bring this up on this discussion list (
> https://twitter.com/robilad/**status/338350845315928064<https://twitter.com/robilad/status/338350845315928064>)
> - so that's what I do now.
>
> Thanks for any support on this.
>
> Kind regards
>   Franz
>