[forge-dev] Wondering about coding convention #philosophy

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

Hey Antonio!

You are absolutely correct. We really need to standardize (and improve in
general) most of the code that Forge generates. Really it works, but I
think that we can do much better to set a good example.

These are good issues to track :)

~Lincoln


On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:29 PM, George Gastaldi <ggastald at redhat.com>wrote:

> Hi Antonio!
>
> Thanks for your feedback! We'll consider your suggestions for the Forge 2
> REST code generation and the scaffold. In the meanwhile could you file a
> JIRA feature request so we don't lose track of this?
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> George Gastaldi
>
> Em 20/10/2013, às 14:51, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.mailing at gmail.com>
> escreveu:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I love Forge because it generates code. And that's why my customers start
> to love it too. Basically, they look at Forge as the "way to write Java EEcode" or if you like "if those guys write code like this, then we should".
>
> I am digging into some details of the generated code (I am writing a blog
> about several architectural styles starting with Forge) and I feel coding
> convention should be homogenized. I know extensions are written by
> different individuals, but some basic coding conventions should be applied.
> For example, when you generate a web app with REST and Faces scaffolding,
> you get some difference :
>
>    - Faces Backing Bean use *query builder* (e.g getAll method is
>    entityManager.createQuery(criteria.select(criteria.from(Book.class))).getResultList();
>    and
>    - REST Endpoint use *dynamic queries* (the list all method is "SELECT
>    DISTINCT b FROM Book b ORDER BY b.id"))
>
> Method names are different and do the same :
>
>    - JSF : getAll
>    - REST : listAll
>
>
> Attributes
>
>    -    private EntityManager em;
>    -    private EntityManager entityManager;  // em would be better
>
> Or the use of this keyword (JSF beans use this.entityManager instead
> of directly em in REST)
>
> And there are several examples like this. If Forge is seen as "the way of
> writing code" maybe something should be created to get homogenized code.
> PMD, Checkstyle, human review and so one.....
>
> Just wondering....
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>
>  | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG<http://www.parisjug.org/>
>  | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>



-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20131020/1e275765/attachment.html