Community
Participate
Working Groups
The default formatter should be "Java Conventions" and not "Default" ("Basic"?). I feel that most people expect the default formatting style to at least approximate Sun's Java Conventions. The current default does a lot of things that are unexpected, such as aggressive collapsing of white space.
By default, we want to preserve a formatting close to the old formatter settings. It is easy enough to switch to the Java conventions settings.
How an you have one that is close to the old formatter settings when everybody had their own that varied from the default? I recommending having two profiles, Java standard and Eclipse standard. Eclipse standard would be whatever most people in the Eclipse platform group use. This will be helpful when comitting code to Eclipse. The default should be Eclipse standard.
It is trivial to switch to the java conventions settings. I really don't see why this is an issue. It is also easy to define a new set of settings based on one of the two predefined settings. I won't try to define an Eclipse standard settings. How do you want to define a "standard" for all developers for something that is a matter of taste. This is why we have a way to define new settings.
Close as WORKSFORME.
Reopen. Wrong bug.
Answer for comment 2, I am not aware of any Eclipse standard. The default settings are closed to what was done in the old formatter. JDT/UI is responsible for settings what profile is the default. Move to JDT/UI. I recommend not changing this. It is easy to move to Java conventions profile.
DJ Houghton and Jeff McAffer seem to be trying to standardize on something judging by recent platform-core-dev traffic.
Olivier, we are using the profile as a default that is marked by JDT/Core as default. To not have different defaults depending on whether the JDT/UI is loaded shouldn't JDT/Core define the default ?
RE: comment #7. DJ and Jeff are trying to define conventions used within their component. It isn't the Eclipse style, which doesn't exist. Closing. No action planned.
Reopen considering bug 65531.
Close as duplicate of bug 65531 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 65531 ***