xml-rpc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Poeschl <mpoes...@marmot.at>
Subject Re: [vote] coding conventions
Date Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:13:56 GMT
John Wilson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Scott Stevens" <jon@latchkey.com>
> To: <rpc-dev@xml.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [vote] coding conventions
> 
> 
> 
>>on 3/14/02 11:16 AM, "John Wilson" <tug@wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>+1 for the Sun conventions.
>>
>>Turbine's conventions extend the Sun conventions (which you don't even
>>follow in your own code). :-)
> 
> 
> The turbine conventions extend and embrace the Sun conventions (changing the
> bracketing layout, for example).
> 
> My own coding conventions are not the Sun conventions. Mine includes the
> obsessive use of final, the use of this to always qualify references to
> class fields and a bunch of idiosyncrasies I'm probably not aware of and
> have no wish to inflict on others. This vote is not on the coding
> conventions used by uk.co.wilson.* packages.

why is MinML in the xml-rpc repo??

the MinML version is 1.6 .. there is a 1.7 version available ..
what's the difference?
should we upgrade?


the majority of developers voted for the turbine conventions. i'll document the decision on
the site 
and do the reformatting next week (after the turbine 2.2b1 release)

if there's anyone working on some files and want to prevent merging problems, please send
me a note.

martin


Mime
View raw message