Re: redundant field initializers

[Michael Koch]

On Monday 20 September 2004 11:43, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do we have a coding style guideline about redundant field
> initializers? I have a patch that removes a couple of these for
> static fields that needlessly result in a static initializer
> method.
>
> For example in javax.naming.spi.NamingManager:
>
> -  private static InitialContextFactoryBuilder icfb = null;
> +  private static InitialContextFactoryBuilder icfb;
>
>    // Package private so DirectoryManager can access it.
> -  static ObjectFactoryBuilder ofb = null;
> +  static ObjectFactoryBuilder ofb;
>
> Making this change removes the need for the compiler to create a
> static initializer.
>
> Does everyone agree that this is a good idea? If so, how far should
> we take this? How about this change:

I agree with you. We should remove redundant initializations . This 
does not only cover static field initializations but also 
initialization of instance variables with default values.

My personal checkstyle checks for this.

> Index: java/awt/EventDispatchThread.java
> ===================================================================
> RCS file:
> /cvsroot/classpath/classpath/java/awt/EventDispatchThread.java,v
> retrieving revision 1.4
> diff -u -r1.4 EventDispatchThread.java
> --- java/awt/EventDispatchThread.java 31 May 2004 21:11:46 -0000
> 1.4
> +++ java/awt/EventDispatchThread.java 19 Sep 2004 09:52:47 -0000
> @@ -42,14 +42,14 @@
>
>  class EventDispatchThread extends Thread
>  {
> -  private static int dispatchThreadNum = 1;
> +  private static int dispatchThreadNum;

You should a comment that the dispatchThreads start with 1 and explain 
it a bit.

>    private EventQueue queue;
>
>    EventDispatchThread(EventQueue queue)
>    {
>      super();
> -    setName("AWT-EventQueue-" + dispatchThreadNum++);
> +    setName("AWT-EventQueue-" + ++dispatchThreadNum);
>      this.queue = queue;
>      setPriority(NORM_PRIORITY + 1);
>      start();

OK, Thanks.


Michael