public inbox for gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [gentoo-java] Code review and main tree inclusion for java-mvn-src.eclass and  java-pkg-simple.eclass
       [not found] <17e1a1290911170922q7a27b7b3t55aeca55397401ea@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2009-11-18 12:59 ` Andrey Kislyuk
       [not found]   ` <20091118193748.3d80c4f3@gentoo.org>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andrey Kislyuk @ 2009-11-18 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-java; +Cc: gentoo-dev

Hi everyone,

I would like to commit a package to the main tree whose dependencies
include the freehep-* libraries from the java-experimental overlay.
Those in turn depend on java-mvn-src.eclass, which depends on
java-pkg-simple.eclass, both written by mvg.

So, I'd like to have these committed to the main tree, which means we
need a code review. Please see here:

http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/java/browser/java-experimental/eclass

... and let's say after 30 days from this email pending resolution of
any complaints mvg and I will push these to main tree.

-ak



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* [gentoo-java] Re: Code review and main tree inclusion for java-mvn-src.eclass and java-pkg-simple.eclass
       [not found]   ` <20091118193748.3d80c4f3@gentoo.org>
@ 2009-12-08 10:24     ` Martin von Gagern
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Martin von Gagern @ 2009-12-08 10:24 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev, gentoo-java; +Cc: Andrey Kislyuk, Christian Faulhammer

Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> java-pkg-simple:
> In my eyes, defining all local variables at the beginning of a function
> makes it easier to read.

Sorry, Fauli, i totally missed your mail as it was only addressed to
gentoo-dev, while I've been intently watching gentoo-java...

java-pkg-simple_src_compile() was designed in a modular fashion, with
blocks for compile, javadoc and package which are pretty much
independent from one another. That's the reason why every one of these
blocks has its own local variables, instead of a single set of locals
for the whole function.

Originally I wrote them as independent functions, and they might well be
turned into such independent functions by adding a few function headers
and braces. So if ever the need arises, that's what I'd do. Splitting
locals would increase the footprint of such a change.

From my #gentoo-java log from 2009-01-03:
(11:24:36 UTC) MvG:
java-pkg-simple_src_compile has five clear parts; would it make sense to
place these in separate functions? This would allow more flexibility for
ebuilds that want to use some but not all of these.
(11:26:20 UTC) ali_bush:
MvG:  up to you,  if they are clear, they could alway be separated out later

To sum things up: yes, I could change the local declarations, but I'd
rather keep things as they are, unless you object more vehemently.

Greetings,
 Martin von Gagern (MvG)



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2009-12-08 10:26 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <17e1a1290911170922q7a27b7b3t55aeca55397401ea@mail.gmail.com>
2009-11-18 12:59 ` [gentoo-java] Code review and main tree inclusion for java-mvn-src.eclass and java-pkg-simple.eclass Andrey Kislyuk
     [not found]   ` <20091118193748.3d80c4f3@gentoo.org>
2009-12-08 10:24     ` [gentoo-java] " Martin von Gagern

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox