nutch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roannel Fernández Hernández (JIRA) <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (NUTCH-2688) Unify the licence headers
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2019 15:59:00 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUTCH-2688?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Roannel Fernández Hernández updated NUTCH-2688:
-----------------------------------------------
    Description: 
Sometimes the license headers are written in .java classes in a javadoc comment (/** license
*/), sometimes in a block comment (/* license */), and sometimes is a javadoc comment but
with several * (/**** license */). The idea is to reach an understanding on how the license
headers should be written on .java files.

According to a visual inspection, other Apache Java-based projects use two aproaches mainly:
javadoc comment and block comment. For example: [Solr-lucene|https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr],
[Tika|https://github.com/apache/tika], [Spark|https://github.com/apache/spark] use the block
comment way, while [Hadoop|https://github.com/apache/hadoop] uses javadoc comment.

To avoid to confuse the license header with a javadoc comment and it doesn't look like a dangling
javadoc comment (since javadoc comments must to be inserted above a class declaration, a method
declaration, or a field declaration), I propose use the block comment for writing the license
header in all .java classes. There must not be an empty line between the license header and
the package declaration, unless it is a package comment file with package comments.

For .java classes the license header looks like:
{code:java}
/*
 * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
 * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
 * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
 * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
 * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */
package org.apache.nutch;
{code}
For a package comment file:
{code:java}
/*
 * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
 * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
 * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
 * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
 * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */

/**
 * Package comments here.
 */
package org.apache.nutch;
{code}
What do you think guys?

  was:
Sometimes the licence headers are written in .java classes in a javadoc comment (/** licence
\*/), sometimes in a block comment (/* licence \*/), and sometimes is a javadoc comment but
with several * (/**** licence */). The idea is to reach an understanding on how the licence
headers should be written on .java files.

According to a visual inspection, other Apache Java-based projects use two aproaches mainly:
javadoc comment and block comment. For example: [Solr-lucene|https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr],
[Tika|https://github.com/apache/tika], [Spark|https://github.com/apache/spark] use the block
comment way, while [Hadoop|https://github.com/apache/hadoop] uses javadoc comment.

To avoid to confuse the licence header with a javadoc comment and it doesn't look like a dangling
javadoc comment (since javadoc comments must to be inserted above a class declaration, a method
declaration, or a field declaration), I propose use the block comment for writing the licence
header in all .java classes. There must not be an empty line between the licence header and
the package declaration, unless it is a package comment file with package comments.

For .java classes the licence header looks like:

{code:java}
/*
 * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
 * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
 * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
 * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
 * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */
package org.apache.nutch;
{code}

For a package comment file:

{code:java}
/*
 * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
 * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
 * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
 * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
 * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */

/**
 * Package comments here.
 */
package org.apache.nutch;
{code}

What do you think guys?


> Unify the licence headers
> -------------------------
>
>                 Key: NUTCH-2688
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUTCH-2688
>             Project: Nutch
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 1.15
>            Reporter: Roannel Fernández Hernández
>            Assignee: Roannel Fernández Hernández
>            Priority: Trivial
>             Fix For: 1.16
>
>
> Sometimes the license headers are written in .java classes in a javadoc comment (/**
license */), sometimes in a block comment (/* license */), and sometimes is a javadoc comment
but with several * (/**** license */). The idea is to reach an understanding on how the license
headers should be written on .java files.
> According to a visual inspection, other Apache Java-based projects use two aproaches
mainly: javadoc comment and block comment. For example: [Solr-lucene|https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr],
[Tika|https://github.com/apache/tika], [Spark|https://github.com/apache/spark] use the block
comment way, while [Hadoop|https://github.com/apache/hadoop] uses javadoc comment.
> To avoid to confuse the license header with a javadoc comment and it doesn't look like
a dangling javadoc comment (since javadoc comments must to be inserted above a class declaration,
a method declaration, or a field declaration), I propose use the block comment for writing
the license header in all .java classes. There must not be an empty line between the license
header and the package declaration, unless it is a package comment file with package comments.
> For .java classes the license header looks like:
> {code:java}
> /*
>  * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>  * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
>  * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>  * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
>  * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
>  * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
>  *
>  *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>  *
>  * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>  * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>  * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
>  * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>  * limitations under the License.
>  */
> package org.apache.nutch;
> {code}
> For a package comment file:
> {code:java}
> /*
>  * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>  * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
>  * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>  * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
>  * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
>  * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
>  *
>  *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>  *
>  * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>  * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>  * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
>  * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>  * limitations under the License.
>  */
> /**
>  * Package comments here.
>  */
> package org.apache.nutch;
> {code}
> What do you think guys?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Mime
View raw message