synapse-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruwan Linton <>
Subject Re: Offer to support Synapse development
Date Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:32:54 GMT
I too agree with Eric here, though they seem to be doing the same thing,
each of these have it's own focuses and I would like to see all three
reports. Thanks Eric for the nice explanation.

So, how are we planning to execute this? Are we going to use the respective
maven plugins, if so I would suggest using a different profile for these
reports without affecting the normal build flow. AFAIK, these reports are
generated at the reporting phase of the maven execution, but of course
FindBugs and PMD comes at the compile phase to collect the information to be
presented in the report.


On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Hubert, Eric <>wrote:

> > Cool!
> >
> > Now, probably it doesn't make sense to use both PMD and findbugs,
> > especially if we use annotations to suppress specific warnings. Do you
> > have an idea which one is better?
> From my personal experiences this is not true. It makes sense to use both
> of them in parallel, because although there is in fact some overlapping,
> they have strength and weaknesses in different areas. It is possible to
> configure them in a way to reduce the overlapping (not suppressing rules in
> code, but exclude some rules from the applied ruleset of each tool). Overall
> PMD is a bit more useful in CI where Findbugs can also help if executed on
> demand.
> Findbugs detects bugs, which PMD can't (bytecode versus source code
> analysis). Number of false positives is higher for Findbugs.
> A while back a colleague prepared a presentation. One picture was quite
> useful to demonstrate the different focus of those tools. I attached it to
> the mail. Hope it comes through...
> Actually we ended up integrating Checkstyle, PMD and Findbugs in CI.
> Additionally to the picture here some of my experiences regarding the
> strength/weaknesses of the tools:
> Checkstyle
> ----------
> Naming, code format, consistence code/JavaDoc, design suggestions
> Pro:
> + good for big, distributed teams to achieve style consistency
> + some design metrics are pretty useful to improve the code (decrease
> complexity)
> Contra:
> - configuration always necessary
> - if used in conjunction with code formatter, rules need to be adjusted to
> avoid conflicts
> - if a project has been setup without checkstyle right from the beginning,
> IDE integration can be painful due to too many violations "for peanuts"
> (whitespace problems, tab instead of space etc.); rules should then be
> applied stepwise
> ---
> Identifies useless control flow, find missing freeing of resources,
> suggestions for performance improvements, identifies redundant checks etc.
> Pro:
> + very good explanation of each violation (including reasoning and hints to
> do it better
> + grouping of rules to rulesets
> + highly customizable (rules in editable xml)
> + extendable (Java/XML knowledge needed)
> Contra:
> - depending on the ruleset, PMD can also output a great number of warnings
> Findbugs
> --------
> Pro:
> + identifies real bugs (NPE, Death Store, multithreading problems due to
> wrong synchronization)
> Contra:
> - number of false positives (problems with compile optimizations,
> dependency injection etc.)
> Very interesting is also what's going on in the sonar open source project:
> Here you can find something in action:
> They also think that all the above tools are valuable and try to integrate
> their results.
> They have also a Hudson plugin available, but I did not find time to
> investigate:
> Regards,
>   Eric
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Ruwan Linton
Senior Software Engineer & Product Manager; WSO2 ESB;
WSO2 Inc.;
email:; cell: +94 77 341 3097

View raw message