[forge-dev] Wondering about coding convention #philosophy

[Antonio Goncalves]

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/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20131020/ae62975a/attachment.html