You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are different styles in the codebase, even in a single source file, is it possible and worthy to force same style by ArchUnit?
Nested/Collection/Map configuration property
implicit initialized with null and expose getter and setter
explicit initialized and expose getter and setter
explicit initialized and mark the field as final (no setter)
I vote for option 2, and it is more common in the codebase.
Set/Map configuration property
initialized with HashSet/HashMap
initialized with LinkedHashSet/LinkedHashMap
I think option 2 is meaningless since the Binder will create ordered Set/Map.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
quaff
changed the title
About style of Nested/Collection/Map properties in @Configuration class
About style of Nested/Collection/Map properties in @ConfigurationProperties class
Jan 22, 2025
Although not technically public API, we have seen folks use configuration properties outside of the Binder. As such, I think I'd be in favor of option 2 in both cases. That should allow the most flexibility.
philwebb
changed the title
About style of Nested/Collection/Map properties in @ConfigurationProperties class
Use consistent style for Nested/Collection/Map properties in @ConfigurationProperties
Jan 24, 2025
There are different styles in the codebase, even in a single source file, is it possible and worthy to force same style by ArchUnit?
Nested/Collection/Map configuration property
I vote for option 2, and it is more common in the codebase.
Set/Map configuration property
HashSet
/HashMap
LinkedHashSet
/LinkedHashMap
I think option 2 is meaningless since the
Binder
will create orderedSet
/Map
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: