Re: gcj vs classpath merge status

[Brian Jones]

Nic Ferrier <address@hidden> writes:

> "Aaron M. Renn" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > > If so, would it also be okay to remove the stream classes and make 
> > > them inner classes (of PlainSocketImpl). That should clear them off 
> > > the merge list. 
> >  
> > As they aren't public classes, I don't think this is necessary.  But 
> > if you really want to, I would not object. (I personally don't care much 
> > for inner classes all that much). 
> >  
> > I believe all of the easy parts of java.net are already merged.  What 
> > remains is the native stuff, including the corresponding Java classes 
> > and URL's.  I think. 
> 
> One other question on this.
> 
> Aaron wrote the classes with the GNU style for indentation applied to 
> methods. The
> current interpretation of the style guide (at least on the gcj
> project) is to apply the indentation to the whole class.
> 
> This means that, strictly, some of the code in java.net should be
> re-formatted.
> 
> I'm quite happy to submit an indentation patch before I do anything
> else... should I?

You should keep the reformatting separate from a code change if at all
possible just so it is more clear in looking at CVS with diff/logs.

Is there a mode in standard GNU indent which meets the right
formatting criteria for Java code and GNU standards?

Brian
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>