Re: [nebula-dev] API code review before M5?

["Nicolas Richeton" <nicolas.richeton@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm also interested in participating. 

The thing is that my component is still under review for IP, under heavy development and lacks of documentation.
I'll do my best to have it ready for review (mostly javadoc and more snippets). Other components should be reviewed first as they are already in Nebula.

Using mails is fine for me.

--
Nicolas

On 1/21/07, Chris Gross <schtoo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The date probably depends more on when Steve will have time.

Steve, when would you like to do the reviews?  Would you prefer them all
at once, or as each component is ready?

regards,
-Chris

Jeremy Dowdall wrote:
> I'm definitely interested in participating.
> Email works well for me too and as for a date, I'd suggest somewhere
> near the end of February.
>
> thanks!
>
> Chris Gross wrote:
>> I'm happy to put my components up for Steve's review along with the
>> CompositeTable.  The other authors are encouraged to do the same.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>> David J. Orme wrote:
>>> Thanks!  Three questions:
>>>
>>> 0) (to the other committers) Who in Nebula is interested in
>>> participating?  I'm fine with using email as that makes it easier to
>>> have a deeper conversation in a time-decoupled manner.
>>>
>>> 1) What kind of time frame works for Steve?  For everyone else?  Or
>>> maybe it's easier for everyone if individual Nebula commiters work
>>> separately with the SWT team (in which case, question 0 doesn't
>>> matter)?
>>>
>>> 2) Steve: Is there a list of things we should think about before we
>>> start the review?  Here's what I'm thinking of right now:
>>>
>>> - JavaDoc completed for all API classes and methods.
>>>
>>> - Obvious refactorings completed.  API should obey DRY and the
>>> various concerns should be defined where they're used, etc.
>>>
>>> - Attention paid to the points raised about good SWT control design
>>> on the Nebula web site.
>>>
>>> - One question: SWT seems to prefer to define listener APIs using
>>> interfaces rather than abstract classes, and to provide Adapter
>>> classes for folks that don't need to implement a full interface,
>>> consistent with AWT. Others API authors I've spoken with prefer to
>>> define API using abstract classes rather than interfaces.  Their
>>> reason is that you can evolve an abstract class without breaking
>>> clients but if you add a method to an interface, you break
>>> everybody.  What is your preference?  Is it a higher priority for
>>> new API to be consistent with AWT and the rest of SWT or to be more
>>> evolvable going forward?  Do you care?
>>>
>>> Is there anything else I'm missing?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.  :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:47:10 -0500
>>> From: Steve Northover <Steve_Northover@xxxxxxxxxx >
>>> Subject: Re: [nebula-dev] API code review before M5?
>>> To: Nebula Dev <nebula-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Message-ID:
>>>
>>> <OF9FA22B08.F4D2A38D-ON85257268.00513067-85257268.005138A0@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>
>>> I'm into it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nebula-dev mailing list
>>> nebula-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nebula-dev mailing list
>> nebula-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev
> _______________________________________________
> nebula-dev mailing list
> nebula-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev
>
_______________________________________________
nebula-dev mailing list
nebula-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev

-- 
--
Nicolas Richeton