lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:33:04 GMT
Excellent Idea - I'll do that monday to give you guys the weekend to do any last minute code
cleaning you want.


----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:30:02 +0300
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> Prescott - we could make an RC and push it to Nuget as a PreRelease, to get
> real feedback.
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a
> > terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy
> > consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say
> > monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
> >
> >
> > > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
> > >
> > > this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> > > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
> > >
> > > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to
> > double check.
> >
> > I'd error with consistency
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
> > >
> > > blah vs. _blah
> > >
> >
> > > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
> > >
> > > _blah = blah;
> > >
> >
> >
> > For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not
> > CLR compliant
> >
> >
> > > However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
> > >
> > > 3) Full qualification of type names.
> > >
> > > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or
> > remove them?
> > >
> >
> > I try to remove them
> >
> > > 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
> > >
> > > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come
> > across so far are private.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never
> > used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a
> > conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there
> > aren't too many of these..
> >
> > > 5) var vs. explicit
> > >
> > > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final
> > disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
> > >
> >
> > I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I
> > usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that
> > makes it unclear what the return value is:
> >
> >
> > var items = search.GetResults();
> >
> > vs
> >
> > IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
> >
> >
> > >
> > > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like
> > artifacts of code generation:
> > >
> > > 6) Weird param names.
> > >
> > > Param1 vs. directory
> > >
> > > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name
> > like 'directory'.
> > >
> >
> > Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a
> > full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially
> > break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and
> > push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes,
> > I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.
> >
> > > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
> > >
> > > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It
> > feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go
> > back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much
> > more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do
> > that.
> > >
> >
> > I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java
> > version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we
> > have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.
> >
> >
> >
> > > If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the
> > documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate
> > the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are
> > willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
> > >
> >
> > I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that
> > conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for us
> > to build rules though.
> >
> > > - Zack
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > >
> > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and
> > trying
> > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly,
> > removing
> > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> > > >
> > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some
> > recent
> > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit
> > more
> > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
> > >
> > 		 	   		  
Mime
View raw message