From chhavnish at gmail.com  Thu Jul 20 04:32:19 2017
From: chhavnish at gmail.com (Chhavnish Mittal)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:02:19 +0530
Subject: New Member in OCA
Message-ID: <CA+xOwFnEA+j7e_9_qkKh62ROs1P-iSkDpY+iosad_SJ1RUQ0yg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone,

My name is CHHAVNISH MITTAL, a young developer aged 22 from India who loves
coding and joined OCA today to contribute in OpenJDK Projects. I am a
recent graduate and working in Cellos Software Limited, India.

Any mentorship for starting the coding in OpenJDK his highly welcomed and
appreciated.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
CHHAVNISH MITTAL
(+91-88267-71419)

From martijnverburg at gmail.com  Thu Jul 20 13:56:51 2017
From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:56:51 +0100
Subject: New Member in OCA
In-Reply-To: <CA+xOwFnEA+j7e_9_qkKh62ROs1P-iSkDpY+iosad_SJ1RUQ0yg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+xOwFnEA+j7e_9_qkKh62ROs1P-iSkDpY+iosad_SJ1RUQ0yg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP7YuAS2xjC2y09Yhz0RGNuv+W+oGNJqXYZvxAy3m-rHSx0e2w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Chhavnish,

Welcome to OpenJDK.  Please see the contribution guide (
http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/) on how to get started and you can also
find help for new joiners in Adoption Group (
http://openjdk.java.net/groups/adoption/)

Cheers,
Martijn

On 20 July 2017 at 05:32, Chhavnish Mittal <chhavnish at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> My name is CHHAVNISH MITTAL, a young developer aged 22 from India who loves
> coding and joined OCA today to contribute in OpenJDK Projects. I am a
> recent graduate and working in Cellos Software Limited, India.
>
> Any mentorship for starting the coding in OpenJDK his highly welcomed and
> appreciated.
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> CHHAVNISH MITTAL
> (+91-88267-71419)
>

From roman at kennke.org  Tue Jul 25 10:06:58 2017
From: roman at kennke.org (Roman Kennke)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:06:58 +0200
Subject: URL to review in commit msg?
Message-ID: <af069d2a-4d79-e4ee-14d4-8015effffc7c@kennke.org>

Hello,

I found myself more than once in a situation where I looked up the
changeset that introduced a particular section of code using hg
annotate, and would have liked to read up on the discussion around it.
But there's no link to reviews anywhere, not in the commit msg, and not
in the bug entry either. At least, as far as I can tell. (please,
correct me if I'm wrong!)

It doesn't seem difficult to simply add the URL to the review thread
into the commit msg (or alternatively, to the bug entry).

Would that be something others would find useful too?

Alternatively (and I think this is being worked on since, dunno, some
years now), we could use an online review system that integrates with
Jira (I suspect Crucible would be the obvious candidate here?), and
which would record and link everything together. But until that happens...?

Cheers, Roman


From dalibor.topic at oracle.com  Tue Jul 25 10:23:55 2017
From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (dalibor topic)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:23:55 +0200
Subject: URL to review in commit msg?
In-Reply-To: <af069d2a-4d79-e4ee-14d4-8015effffc7c@kennke.org>
References: <af069d2a-4d79-e4ee-14d4-8015effffc7c@kennke.org>
Message-ID: <000168be-32fc-b6f2-fbe0-a2270ed7ee6a@oracle.com>

On 25.07.2017 12:06, Roman Kennke wrote:
> It doesn't seem difficult to simply add the URL to the review thread
> into the commit msg (or alternatively, to the bug entry).

I don't think that the commit message is a good place, as URLs break 
over time. The bug system seems like a better place for links to related 
conversations.

> Would that be something others would find useful too?

Fwiw, I use http://openjdk.markmail.org/ and search for the bug id.

cheers,
dalibor topic

-- 
<http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
<tel:+491737185961>

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | K?hneh?fe 5 | 22761 Hamburg

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603

Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher

<http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing
practices and products that help protect the environment

From lars.francke at gmail.com  Wed Jul 26 06:41:29 2017
From: lars.francke at gmail.com (Lars Francke)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:41:29 +0200
Subject: State of the Java Style Guidelines document
Message-ID: <CAD-Ua_iYKGXYmubUdRwD80ZP+uCzH9h73-_J8H26fQCwruoa=w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

I've been following the work Andreas Lundblad has done on the new Java
Style Guidelines[1]. I know that he's not with Oracle anymore but the draft
looks good (and has done so for at least a year), I think all comments have
been worked into it. Why has it not been published? Is anyone working on
this, if yes, who?

I'd be happy to do any work needed to bring it to a final and published
form if needed. But to me it looks ready to be published today (apart from
a few minor issues I've reported to Andreas already).

The old code conventions from 1997 can really use an updated version.

Cheers,
Lars


[1] <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html>

From forax at univ-mlv.fr  Wed Jul 26 10:21:41 2017
From: forax at univ-mlv.fr (Remi Forax)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:21:41 +0000
Subject: State of the Java Style Guidelines document
In-Reply-To: <CAD-Ua_iYKGXYmubUdRwD80ZP+uCzH9h73-_J8H26fQCwruoa=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD-Ua_iYKGXYmubUdRwD80ZP+uCzH9h73-_J8H26fQCwruoa=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D63974E0-B885-4E90-8173-79A53139A22A@univ-mlv.fr>

I agree with Lars,
this should be published ASAP.

regards,
Remi




On July 26, 2017 8:41:29 AM GMT+02:00, Lars Francke <lars.francke at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>I've been following the work Andreas Lundblad has done on the new Java
>Style Guidelines[1]. I know that he's not with Oracle anymore but the
>draft
>looks good (and has done so for at least a year), I think all comments
>have
>been worked into it. Why has it not been published? Is anyone working
>on
>this, if yes, who?
>
>I'd be happy to do any work needed to bring it to a final and published
>form if needed. But to me it looks ready to be published today (apart
>from
>a few minor issues I've reported to Andreas already).
>
>The old code conventions from 1997 can really use an updated version.
>
>Cheers,
>Lars
>
>
>[1] <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

From james.graham at oracle.com  Wed Jul 26 19:21:06 2017
From: james.graham at oracle.com (Jim Graham)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:21:06 -0700
Subject: State of the Java Style Guidelines document
In-Reply-To: <D63974E0-B885-4E90-8173-79A53139A22A@univ-mlv.fr>
References: <CAD-Ua_iYKGXYmubUdRwD80ZP+uCzH9h73-_J8H26fQCwruoa=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <D63974E0-B885-4E90-8173-79A53139A22A@univ-mlv.fr>
Message-ID: <d10e67f2-ccc3-38e5-72f8-95649963559a@oracle.com>

Sorry to sound like a broken record here - I think it should be published too, but... ;)

If only it would adopt the convention used in much of 2D and FX of putting a brace on its own line after a line-wrapped 
conditional/method declaration (preferably as the primary form, but even as an acceptable alternative):

public void longMethodNameUsedOnlyForIllustration(SomeLongClassName paramA,
                                                   LongClassName paramB,
                                                   int someOtherParam)
         throws OtherFormsAreUglySmileyFaceException
{
     ...
}

provides the cleanest and clearest sight line to see where the body of the method/class/conditional starts...

</broken record mode>

				...jim

On 7/26/17 3:21 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
> I agree with Lars,
> this should be published ASAP.
> 
> regards,
> Remi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On July 26, 2017 8:41:29 AM GMT+02:00, Lars Francke <lars.francke at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I've been following the work Andreas Lundblad has done on the new Java
>> Style Guidelines[1]. I know that he's not with Oracle anymore but the
>> draft
>> looks good (and has done so for at least a year), I think all comments
>> have
>> been worked into it. Why has it not been published? Is anyone working
>> on
>> this, if yes, who?
>>
>> I'd be happy to do any work needed to bring it to a final and published
>> form if needed. But to me it looks ready to be published today (apart
>> from
>> a few minor issues I've reported to Andreas already).
>>
>> The old code conventions from 1997 can really use an updated version.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lars
>>
>>
>> [1] <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html>
> 

From jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com  Wed Jul 26 19:30:12 2017
From: jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com (Jonathan Gibbons)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:30:12 -0700
Subject: State of the Java Style Guidelines document
In-Reply-To: <d10e67f2-ccc3-38e5-72f8-95649963559a@oracle.com>
References: <CAD-Ua_iYKGXYmubUdRwD80ZP+uCzH9h73-_J8H26fQCwruoa=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <D63974E0-B885-4E90-8173-79A53139A22A@univ-mlv.fr>
 <d10e67f2-ccc3-38e5-72f8-95649963559a@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <5978EDC4.1000803@oracle.com>

Religious wars are waged over lesser issues.

I think it is presumptious to recommend a style for all Java code, but I 
do think it is reasonable to establish coding guidelines for a specific 
code base, such as OpenJDK.  Even so, opinions will still differ, and 
there was an attempt in Andreas' work to accommodate reasonable 
alternatives, with a general proviso of, "when editing existing code 
that has a consistent style, try to conform to that style, and not 
slavishly conform to some different standard."

-- Jon


On 07/26/2017 12:21 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
> Sorry to sound like a broken record here - I think it should be 
> published too, but... ;)
>
> If only it would adopt the convention used in much of 2D and FX of 
> putting a brace on its own line after a line-wrapped 
> conditional/method declaration (preferably as the primary form, but 
> even as an acceptable alternative):
>
> public void longMethodNameUsedOnlyForIllustration(SomeLongClassName 
> paramA,
>                                                   LongClassName paramB,
>                                                   int someOtherParam)
>         throws OtherFormsAreUglySmileyFaceException
> {
>     ...
> }
>
> provides the cleanest and clearest sight line to see where the body of 
> the method/class/conditional starts...
>
> </broken record mode>
>
>                 ...jim
>
> On 7/26/17 3:21 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>> I agree with Lars,
>> this should be published ASAP.
>>
>> regards,
>> Remi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On July 26, 2017 8:41:29 AM GMT+02:00, Lars Francke 
>> <lars.francke at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I've been following the work Andreas Lundblad has done on the new Java
>>> Style Guidelines[1]. I know that he's not with Oracle anymore but the
>>> draft
>>> looks good (and has done so for at least a year), I think all comments
>>> have
>>> been worked into it. Why has it not been published? Is anyone working
>>> on
>>> this, if yes, who?
>>>
>>> I'd be happy to do any work needed to bring it to a final and published
>>> form if needed. But to me it looks ready to be published today (apart
>>> from
>>> a few minor issues I've reported to Andreas already).
>>>
>>> The old code conventions from 1997 can really use an updated version.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lars
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html>
>>


From james.graham at oracle.com  Wed Jul 26 19:46:59 2017
From: james.graham at oracle.com (Jim Graham)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:46:59 -0700
Subject: State of the Java Style Guidelines document
In-Reply-To: <5978EDC4.1000803@oracle.com>
References: <CAD-Ua_iYKGXYmubUdRwD80ZP+uCzH9h73-_J8H26fQCwruoa=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <D63974E0-B885-4E90-8173-79A53139A22A@univ-mlv.fr>
 <d10e67f2-ccc3-38e5-72f8-95649963559a@oracle.com>
 <5978EDC4.1000803@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <0a71044e-907c-493e-33f7-7b1d5194e5e6@oracle.com>

Agreed, but this version is already in use in the code and was adopted by an entire group, though not the group that the 
effort towards updating this document was based in.

I had suggested it to the author.  It seemed to go nowhere and I don't believe it was presented in a poll that was sent 
out asking for feedback on style variations so it never got the visibility I think it deserved.  There were clear biases 
to ignore the input at the time and I thought it short-sighted.

There are many areas where I disagree with the variant chosen, but will go with the flow, but this is one area where I 
really don't get why the suggestion was ignored as I see it as superior in terms of maintainability on every single 
front to what was documented - to the extent where I will always be non-compliant with the suggested form - I'm sorry, I 
can't bring myself to reduce the readability of my code because the one person in charge had something against a single 
additional line in the source base that would provide clarity...

				...jim

On 7/26/17 12:30 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Religious wars are waged over lesser issues.
> 
> I think it is presumptious to recommend a style for all Java code, but I do think it is reasonable to establish coding 
> guidelines for a specific code base, such as OpenJDK.  Even so, opinions will still differ, and there was an attempt in 
> Andreas' work to accommodate reasonable alternatives, with a general proviso of, "when editing existing code that has a 
> consistent style, try to conform to that style, and not slavishly conform to some different standard."
> 
> -- Jon
> 
> 
> On 07/26/2017 12:21 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
>> Sorry to sound like a broken record here - I think it should be published too, but... ;)
>>
>> If only it would adopt the convention used in much of 2D and FX of putting a brace on its own line after a 
>> line-wrapped conditional/method declaration (preferably as the primary form, but even as an acceptable alternative):
>>
>> public void longMethodNameUsedOnlyForIllustration(SomeLongClassName paramA,
>>                                                   LongClassName paramB,
>>                                                   int someOtherParam)
>>         throws OtherFormsAreUglySmileyFaceException
>> {
>>     ...
>> }
>>
>> provides the cleanest and clearest sight line to see where the body of the method/class/conditional starts...
>>
>> </broken record mode>
>>
>>                 ...jim
>>
>> On 7/26/17 3:21 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>>> I agree with Lars,
>>> this should be published ASAP.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Remi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On July 26, 2017 8:41:29 AM GMT+02:00, Lars Francke <lars.francke at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I've been following the work Andreas Lundblad has done on the new Java
>>>> Style Guidelines[1]. I know that he's not with Oracle anymore but the
>>>> draft
>>>> looks good (and has done so for at least a year), I think all comments
>>>> have
>>>> been worked into it. Why has it not been published? Is anyone working
>>>> on
>>>> this, if yes, who?
>>>>
>>>> I'd be happy to do any work needed to bring it to a final and published
>>>> form if needed. But to me it looks ready to be published today (apart
>>>> from
>>>> a few minor issues I've reported to Andreas already).
>>>>
>>>> The old code conventions from 1997 can really use an updated version.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Lars
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html>
>>>
> 

From joe.darcy at oracle.com  Wed Jul 26 20:15:12 2017
From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (joe darcy)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:15:12 -0700
Subject: URL to review in commit msg?
In-Reply-To: <af069d2a-4d79-e4ee-14d4-8015effffc7c@kennke.org>
References: <af069d2a-4d79-e4ee-14d4-8015effffc7c@kennke.org>
Message-ID: <ab02a045-a779-dcef-8989-5ac21ae1ff6d@oracle.com>

Hi Roman,

FWIW, I agree with you that it would be helpful to have a link to the 
code review discussion in the bug history. Towards that end, I put a 
link to the review thread in the comments on my bugs in JBS; e.g.:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8183175?focusedCommentId=14097068&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14097068
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8183173?focusedCommentId=14097055&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14097055

A few other engineers follow this practice as well, but it is far from 
universal.

HTH,

-Joe


On 7/25/2017 3:06 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I found myself more than once in a situation where I looked up the
> changeset that introduced a particular section of code using hg
> annotate, and would have liked to read up on the discussion around it.
> But there's no link to reviews anywhere, not in the commit msg, and not
> in the bug entry either. At least, as far as I can tell. (please,
> correct me if I'm wrong!)
>
> It doesn't seem difficult to simply add the URL to the review thread
> into the commit msg (or alternatively, to the bug entry).
>
> Would that be something others would find useful too?
>
> Alternatively (and I think this is being worked on since, dunno, some
> years now), we could use an online review system that integrates with
> Jira (I suspect Crucible would be the obvious candidate here?), and
> which would record and link everything together. But until that happens...?
>
> Cheers, Roman
>


From lars.francke at gmail.com  Thu Jul 27 08:44:52 2017
From: lars.francke at gmail.com (Lars Francke)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:44:52 +0200
Subject: State of the Java Style Guidelines document
In-Reply-To: <0a71044e-907c-493e-33f7-7b1d5194e5e6@oracle.com>
References: <CAD-Ua_iYKGXYmubUdRwD80ZP+uCzH9h73-_J8H26fQCwruoa=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <D63974E0-B885-4E90-8173-79A53139A22A@univ-mlv.fr>
 <d10e67f2-ccc3-38e5-72f8-95649963559a@oracle.com>
 <5978EDC4.1000803@oracle.com>
 <0a71044e-907c-493e-33f7-7b1d5194e5e6@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAD-Ua_jJOcXN36rxvVJxDp-UivvfHkL+CSzpBC545XXGSqdn6w@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

I understand that people have different personal preferences various topics
and we'll never be able to find one style that accommodates all of them.

Just to explain what my personal motivation for this push is:
Lots of open-source projects (I'm mostly working with the Big Data Apache
projects) list the old Sun Code Conventions[1] as the code style to follow.
Unfortunately those haven't been updated in 20 years and they leave out
lots of minor details that have been clarified in the new version. So for
me a revised version of this old document (with no/little changes in the
actual code style) would already be a huge benefit.

I'm not lobbying for these style guidelines to be adopted by every OpenJDK
project (or any project in fact). I'd love for those guidelines to be
published as-is as "guidelines" that projects (outside of the OpenJDK as
well) can adopt. Nothing's stopping you (as is done in Apache projects
frequently) to have your own guidelines "inherit" from these and overwrite
certain rules.

> I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to reduce the readability of my code
because the one person in charge had something against a single additional
line in the source base that would provide clarity...

People obviously have different opinions on readability and I'm not sure if
it's a good idea to list alternative versions for all contentious issues
because it would make the whole document more or less meaningless. I think
Jonathan has a good point in that the guidelines already cater for
differing styles and you could publish your own version for the FX project
that lists the points where you deviate from these guidelines.

A more procedural question though: Assuming we can find a document version
that we all agree on. What would be needed to publish it and who'd be the
right person to do so?

Thank you,
Lars

[1] <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconvtoc-136057.html>

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Jim Graham <james.graham at oracle.com> wrote:

> Agreed, but this version is already in use in the code and was adopted by
> an entire group, though not the group that the effort towards updating this
> document was based in.
>
> I had suggested it to the author.  It seemed to go nowhere and I don't
> believe it was presented in a poll that was sent out asking for feedback on
> style variations so it never got the visibility I think it deserved.  There
> were clear biases to ignore the input at the time and I thought it
> short-sighted.
>
> There are many areas where I disagree with the variant chosen, but will go
> with the flow, but this is one area where I really don't get why the
> suggestion was ignored as I see it as superior in terms of maintainability
> on every single front to what was documented - to the extent where I will
> always be non-compliant with the suggested form - I'm sorry, I can't bring
> myself to reduce the readability of my code because the one person in
> charge had something against a single additional line in the source base
> that would provide clarity...
>
>                                 ...jim
>
>
> On 7/26/17 12:30 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>
>> Religious wars are waged over lesser issues.
>>
>> I think it is presumptious to recommend a style for all Java code, but I
>> do think it is reasonable to establish coding guidelines for a specific
>> code base, such as OpenJDK.  Even so, opinions will still differ, and there
>> was an attempt in Andreas' work to accommodate reasonable alternatives,
>> with a general proviso of, "when editing existing code that has a
>> consistent style, try to conform to that style, and not slavishly conform
>> to some different standard."
>>
>> -- Jon
>>
>>
>> On 07/26/2017 12:21 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to sound like a broken record here - I think it should be
>>> published too, but... ;)
>>>
>>> If only it would adopt the convention used in much of 2D and FX of
>>> putting a brace on its own line after a line-wrapped conditional/method
>>> declaration (preferably as the primary form, but even as an acceptable
>>> alternative):
>>>
>>> public void longMethodNameUsedOnlyForIllustration(SomeLongClassName
>>> paramA,
>>>                                                   LongClassName paramB,
>>>                                                   int someOtherParam)
>>>         throws OtherFormsAreUglySmileyFaceException
>>> {
>>>     ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> provides the cleanest and clearest sight line to see where the body of
>>> the method/class/conditional starts...
>>>
>>> </broken record mode>
>>>
>>>                 ...jim
>>>
>>> On 7/26/17 3:21 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Lars,
>>>> this should be published ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Remi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On July 26, 2017 8:41:29 AM GMT+02:00, Lars Francke <
>>>> lars.francke at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been following the work Andreas Lundblad has done on the new Java
>>>>> Style Guidelines[1]. I know that he's not with Oracle anymore but the
>>>>> draft
>>>>> looks good (and has done so for at least a year), I think all comments
>>>>> have
>>>>> been worked into it. Why has it not been published? Is anyone working
>>>>> on
>>>>> this, if yes, who?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be happy to do any work needed to bring it to a final and published
>>>>> form if needed. But to me it looks ready to be published today (apart
>>>>> from
>>>>> a few minor issues I've reported to Andreas already).
>>>>>
>>>>> The old code conventions from 1997 can really use an updated version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Lars
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

From james.graham at oracle.com  Thu Jul 27 20:39:26 2017
From: james.graham at oracle.com (Jim Graham)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:39:26 -0700
Subject: State of the Java Style Guidelines document
In-Reply-To: <CAD-Ua_jJOcXN36rxvVJxDp-UivvfHkL+CSzpBC545XXGSqdn6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD-Ua_iYKGXYmubUdRwD80ZP+uCzH9h73-_J8H26fQCwruoa=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <D63974E0-B885-4E90-8173-79A53139A22A@univ-mlv.fr>
 <d10e67f2-ccc3-38e5-72f8-95649963559a@oracle.com>
 <5978EDC4.1000803@oracle.com>
 <0a71044e-907c-493e-33f7-7b1d5194e5e6@oracle.com>
 <CAD-Ua_jJOcXN36rxvVJxDp-UivvfHkL+CSzpBC545XXGSqdn6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <84f69d94-c967-f549-ece4-22025f584b6e@oracle.com>

I've already said that I think it should be published.  I have an objection that I've noted just to keep it on the 
record (via broken record loop), but that wasn't a blocking objection...

			...jim

On 7/27/17 1:44 AM, Lars Francke wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback everyone!
> 
> I understand that people have different personal preferences various topics and we'll never be able to find one style 
> that accommodates all of them.
> 
> Just to explain what my personal motivation for this push is:
> Lots of open-source projects (I'm mostly working with the Big Data Apache projects) list the old Sun Code Conventions[1] 
> as the code style to follow. Unfortunately those haven't been updated in 20 years and they leave out lots of minor 
> details that have been clarified in the new version. So for me a revised version of this old document (with no/little 
> changes in the actual code style) would already be a huge benefit.
> 
> I'm not lobbying for these style guidelines to be adopted by every OpenJDK project (or any project in fact). I'd love 
> for those guidelines to be published as-is as "guidelines" that projects (outside of the OpenJDK as well) can adopt. 
> Nothing's stopping you (as is done in Apache projects frequently) to have your own guidelines "inherit" from these and 
> overwrite certain rules.
> 
>  >I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to reduce the readability of my code because the one person in charge had something 
> against a single additional line in the source base that would provide clarity...
> 
> People obviously have different opinions on readability and I'm not sure if it's a good idea to list alternative 
> versions for all contentious issues because it would make the whole document more or less meaningless. I think Jonathan 
> has a good point in that the guidelines already cater for differing styles and you could publish your own version for 
> the FX project that lists the points where you deviate from these guidelines.
> 
> A more procedural question though: Assuming we can find a document version that we all agree on. What would be needed to 
> publish it and who'd be the right person to do so?
> 
> Thank you,
> Lars
> 
> [1] <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconvtoc-136057.html>
> 
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Jim Graham <james.graham at oracle.com <mailto:james.graham at oracle.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Agreed, but this version is already in use in the code and was adopted by an entire group, though not the group that
>     the effort towards updating this document was based in.
> 
>     I had suggested it to the author.  It seemed to go nowhere and I don't believe it was presented in a poll that was
>     sent out asking for feedback on style variations so it never got the visibility I think it deserved.  There were
>     clear biases to ignore the input at the time and I thought it short-sighted.
> 
>     There are many areas where I disagree with the variant chosen, but will go with the flow, but this is one area where
>     I really don't get why the suggestion was ignored as I see it as superior in terms of maintainability on every
>     single front to what was documented - to the extent where I will always be non-compliant with the suggested form -
>     I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to reduce the readability of my code because the one person in charge had something
>     against a single additional line in the source base that would provide clarity...
> 
>                                      ...jim
> 
> 
>     On 7/26/17 12:30 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> 
>         Religious wars are waged over lesser issues.
> 
>         I think it is presumptious to recommend a style for all Java code, but I do think it is reasonable to establish
>         coding guidelines for a specific code base, such as OpenJDK.  Even so, opinions will still differ, and there was
>         an attempt in Andreas' work to accommodate reasonable alternatives, with a general proviso of, "when editing
>         existing code that has a consistent style, try to conform to that style, and not slavishly conform to some
>         different standard."
> 
>         -- Jon
> 
> 
>         On 07/26/2017 12:21 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
> 
>             Sorry to sound like a broken record here - I think it should be published too, but... ;)
> 
>             If only it would adopt the convention used in much of 2D and FX of putting a brace on its own line after a
>             line-wrapped conditional/method declaration (preferably as the primary form, but even as an acceptable
>             alternative):
> 
>             public void longMethodNameUsedOnlyForIllustration(SomeLongClassName paramA,
>                                                                LongClassName paramB,
>                                                                int someOtherParam)
>                      throws OtherFormsAreUglySmileyFaceException
>             {
>                  ...
>             }
> 
>             provides the cleanest and clearest sight line to see where the body of the method/class/conditional starts...
> 
>             </broken record mode>
> 
>                              ...jim
> 
>             On 7/26/17 3:21 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
> 
>                 I agree with Lars,
>                 this should be published ASAP.
> 
>                 regards,
>                 Remi
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                 On July 26, 2017 8:41:29 AM GMT+02:00, Lars Francke <lars.francke at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:lars.francke at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>                     Hi everyone,
> 
>                     I've been following the work Andreas Lundblad has done on the new Java
>                     Style Guidelines[1]. I know that he's not with Oracle anymore but the
>                     draft
>                     looks good (and has done so for at least a year), I think all comments
>                     have
>                     been worked into it. Why has it not been published? Is anyone working
>                     on
>                     this, if yes, who?
> 
>                     I'd be happy to do any work needed to bring it to a final and published
>                     form if needed. But to me it looks ready to be published today (apart
>                     from
>                     a few minor issues I've reported to Andreas already).
> 
>                     The old code conventions from 1997 can really use an updated version.
> 
>                     Cheers,
>                     Lars
> 
> 
>                     [1] <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html
>                     <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

From lars.francke at gmail.com  Mon Jul 31 07:37:01 2017
From: lars.francke at gmail.com (Lars Francke)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:37:01 +0200
Subject: State of the Java Style Guidelines document
In-Reply-To: <84f69d94-c967-f549-ece4-22025f584b6e@oracle.com>
References: <CAD-Ua_iYKGXYmubUdRwD80ZP+uCzH9h73-_J8H26fQCwruoa=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <D63974E0-B885-4E90-8173-79A53139A22A@univ-mlv.fr>
 <d10e67f2-ccc3-38e5-72f8-95649963559a@oracle.com>
 <5978EDC4.1000803@oracle.com>
 <0a71044e-907c-493e-33f7-7b1d5194e5e6@oracle.com>
 <CAD-Ua_jJOcXN36rxvVJxDp-UivvfHkL+CSzpBC545XXGSqdn6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <84f69d94-c967-f549-ece4-22025f584b6e@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAD-Ua_ibj-9bA1U+GCugAbPaHgb1_rFYxKfzCaqgr6f9Pk36EQ@mail.gmail.com>

That's good to hear, thanks for the clarification.

For now that leaves the question what's blocking this from being published
or maybe what can be done to move this forward. Any idea who can publish
this and/or what procedures to follow?

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Jim Graham <james.graham at oracle.com>
wrote:

> I've already said that I think it should be published.  I have an
> objection that I've noted just to keep it on the record (via broken record
> loop), but that wasn't a blocking objection...
>
>                         ...jim
>
> On 7/27/17 1:44 AM, Lars Francke wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback everyone!
>>
>> I understand that people have different personal preferences various
>> topics and we'll never be able to find one style that accommodates all of
>> them.
>>
>> Just to explain what my personal motivation for this push is:
>> Lots of open-source projects (I'm mostly working with the Big Data Apache
>> projects) list the old Sun Code Conventions[1] as the code style to follow.
>> Unfortunately those haven't been updated in 20 years and they leave out
>> lots of minor details that have been clarified in the new version. So for
>> me a revised version of this old document (with no/little changes in the
>> actual code style) would already be a huge benefit.
>>
>> I'm not lobbying for these style guidelines to be adopted by every
>> OpenJDK project (or any project in fact). I'd love for those guidelines to
>> be published as-is as "guidelines" that projects (outside of the OpenJDK as
>> well) can adopt. Nothing's stopping you (as is done in Apache projects
>> frequently) to have your own guidelines "inherit" from these and overwrite
>> certain rules.
>>
>>  >I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to reduce the readability of my code
>> because the one person in charge had something against a single additional
>> line in the source base that would provide clarity...
>>
>> People obviously have different opinions on readability and I'm not sure
>> if it's a good idea to list alternative versions for all contentious issues
>> because it would make the whole document more or less meaningless. I think
>> Jonathan has a good point in that the guidelines already cater for
>> differing styles and you could publish your own version for the FX project
>> that lists the points where you deviate from these guidelines.
>>
>> A more procedural question though: Assuming we can find a document
>> version that we all agree on. What would be needed to publish it and who'd
>> be the right person to do so?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Lars
>>
>> [1] <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconvtoc-136057.html>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Jim Graham <james.graham at oracle.com
>> <mailto:james.graham at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Agreed, but this version is already in use in the code and was
>> adopted by an entire group, though not the group that
>>     the effort towards updating this document was based in.
>>
>>     I had suggested it to the author.  It seemed to go nowhere and I
>> don't believe it was presented in a poll that was
>>     sent out asking for feedback on style variations so it never got the
>> visibility I think it deserved.  There were
>>     clear biases to ignore the input at the time and I thought it
>> short-sighted.
>>
>>     There are many areas where I disagree with the variant chosen, but
>> will go with the flow, but this is one area where
>>     I really don't get why the suggestion was ignored as I see it as
>> superior in terms of maintainability on every
>>     single front to what was documented - to the extent where I will
>> always be non-compliant with the suggested form -
>>     I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to reduce the readability of my code
>> because the one person in charge had something
>>     against a single additional line in the source base that would
>> provide clarity...
>>
>>                                      ...jim
>>
>>
>>     On 7/26/17 12:30 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>
>>         Religious wars are waged over lesser issues.
>>
>>         I think it is presumptious to recommend a style for all Java
>> code, but I do think it is reasonable to establish
>>         coding guidelines for a specific code base, such as OpenJDK.
>> Even so, opinions will still differ, and there was
>>         an attempt in Andreas' work to accommodate reasonable
>> alternatives, with a general proviso of, "when editing
>>         existing code that has a consistent style, try to conform to that
>> style, and not slavishly conform to some
>>         different standard."
>>
>>         -- Jon
>>
>>
>>         On 07/26/2017 12:21 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
>>
>>             Sorry to sound like a broken record here - I think it should
>> be published too, but... ;)
>>
>>             If only it would adopt the convention used in much of 2D and
>> FX of putting a brace on its own line after a
>>             line-wrapped conditional/method declaration (preferably as
>> the primary form, but even as an acceptable
>>             alternative):
>>
>>             public void longMethodNameUsedOnlyForIllustration(SomeLongClassName
>> paramA,
>>
>>  LongClassName paramB,
>>                                                                int
>> someOtherParam)
>>                      throws OtherFormsAreUglySmileyFaceException
>>             {
>>                  ...
>>             }
>>
>>             provides the cleanest and clearest sight line to see where
>> the body of the method/class/conditional starts...
>>
>>             </broken record mode>
>>
>>                              ...jim
>>
>>             On 7/26/17 3:21 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>>
>>                 I agree with Lars,
>>                 this should be published ASAP.
>>
>>                 regards,
>>                 Remi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                 On July 26, 2017 8:41:29 AM GMT+02:00, Lars Francke <
>> lars.francke at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:lars.francke at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>                     Hi everyone,
>>
>>                     I've been following the work Andreas Lundblad has
>> done on the new Java
>>                     Style Guidelines[1]. I know that he's not with Oracle
>> anymore but the
>>                     draft
>>                     looks good (and has done so for at least a year), I
>> think all comments
>>                     have
>>                     been worked into it. Why has it not been published?
>> Is anyone working
>>                     on
>>                     this, if yes, who?
>>
>>                     I'd be happy to do any work needed to bring it to a
>> final and published
>>                     form if needed. But to me it looks ready to be
>> published today (apart
>>                     from
>>                     a few minor issues I've reported to Andreas already).
>>
>>                     The old code conventions from 1997 can really use an
>> updated version.
>>
>>                     Cheers,
>>                     Lars
>>
>>
>>                     [1] <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~a
>> lundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html
>>                     <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~a
>> lundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>