Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 87146 invoked by uid 500); 22 Oct 2001 13:21:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 87137 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2001 13:21:30 -0000 Message-ID: <00c401c15afc$7355b620$3f04a8c0@win.xtramind.dfki.de> From: "Ingmar Stein" To: References: <9B3E950CB293D411ADF4009027B0A4D202799ACA@maileu.imediation.com> Subject: Re: Problem with JUnit's TestCase.getName change Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:21:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2512.0001 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2512.0001 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on domino1/XtraMind(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 22.10.2001 15:21:25, Serialize by Router on domino1/XtraMind(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 22.10.2001 15:21:26, Serialize complete at 22.10.2001 15:21:26 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS with Sophos Sweep X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > I'd say (2) also for the sake of compatibility even though I believe this > should not be too problematic for users to upgrade from 3.6 to 3.7... If the > user can upgrade to Ant 1.5 I see no reasons for not upgrading to JUnit 3.7+ > at the same time. :) If you plan to release 1.4.2 then I would go for (1) as a bugfix release should not break existing functionality. But for 1.5 or even 2.0, I would not choose the slow reflection, instead use the getName() method. Just my 2 cents, Ingmar Stein