mirror of https://github.com/apache/poi.git
Fixed a spelling mistake and added a small bit about jokes.
git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/poi/trunk@352398 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
This commit is contained in:
parent
cd7d2b030d
commit
451e6d72bd
|
@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
|
|||
<title>POI Resoluton</title>
|
||||
<subtitle>Resolution 001 - Minimal Coding Standards</subtitle>
|
||||
<authors>
|
||||
<person name="Andrew C. Oliver" email="acoliver@apache.org"/>
|
||||
<person name="Andrew C. Oliver" email="acoliver@apache.org"/>
|
||||
</authors>
|
||||
</header>
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -20,36 +20,36 @@
|
|||
styles by working with different code. That being said
|
||||
there are some universal "good quality" guidelines that
|
||||
must be adopted on a project of any proportions.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Marc Johnson Authored the following resolution:
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 22:23, Marc Johnson wrote:
|
||||
Standards are wonderful; everyone should have a set.
|
||||
Here's what I propose for coding standards for POI WRT comments (should I
|
||||
Here's what I propose for coding standards for POI WRT comments (should I
|
||||
feel the need, I'll post more of these little gems):
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
<ol>
|
||||
<li>
|
||||
All classes and interfaces MUST have, right at the beginning, the POI
|
||||
All classes and interfaces MUST have, right at the beginning, the POI
|
||||
License (see poi/doc/LICENSE).
|
||||
</li>
|
||||
<li>
|
||||
All classes and interfaces MUST include class javadoc. Conventionally,
|
||||
this goes after the package and imports, and before the start of the class
|
||||
All classes and interfaces MUST include class javadoc. Conventionally,
|
||||
this goes after the package and imports, and before the start of the class
|
||||
or interface. The class javadoc MUST have at least one @author tag
|
||||
</li>
|
||||
<li>
|
||||
All methods that are accessible outside the class MUST have javadoc
|
||||
comments. In other words, if it isn't private, it MUST have javadoc
|
||||
comments. Simple getters can consist of a simple @return tag; simple setters
|
||||
can consist of a simple @param tag. Anything else requires some verbiage
|
||||
plus all the standard javadoc tags as appropriate. You MUST include @throws
|
||||
or @exception for any non-runtime exceptions, and you SHOULD document any
|
||||
runtime exceptions you expect to throw. @throws/@exception tags SHOULD
|
||||
include an explanation of why that exception would be thrown. If your method
|
||||
might return null, you MUST say so. An accompanying explanation of the
|
||||
All methods that are accessible outside the class MUST have javadoc
|
||||
comments. In other words, if it isn't private, it MUST have javadoc
|
||||
comments. Simple getters can consist of a simple @return tag; simple setters
|
||||
can consist of a simple @param tag. Anything else requires some verbiage
|
||||
plus all the standard javadoc tags as appropriate. You MUST include @throws
|
||||
or @exception for any non-runtime exceptions, and you SHOULD document any
|
||||
runtime exceptions you expect to throw. @throws/@exception tags SHOULD
|
||||
include an explanation of why that exception would be thrown. If your method
|
||||
might return null, you MUST say so. An accompanying explanation of the
|
||||
circumstances for doing so would be nice.
|
||||
</li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
|
@ -58,24 +58,24 @@
|
|||
<section title="License">
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
As opposed to the formerly used POI License which was
|
||||
based on the Apache Public License, now that POI is part of
|
||||
based on the Apache Public License, now that POI is part of
|
||||
Jakarta, use the APL 1.1 for the header. Currently, the
|
||||
Apache Software Foundation requires us to use the full
|
||||
long version.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
<section title="2 cents">
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
<section title="2 cents">
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Tip: No laughing allow in conversations regarding coding
|
||||
Tip: No laughing or joking allowed in conversations regarding coding
|
||||
standards.
|
||||
Any mail on coding standards will be treated very seriously,
|
||||
and sent here with a RTFM.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
<section title="Dissent">
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
The motion was passed unanimously with no negative or
|
||||
The motion was passed unanimously with no negative or
|
||||
positive votes.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue