commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Downey <steve.dow...@netfolio.com>
Subject Re: [beanutils] ready for 1.5 release?
Date Sat, 19 Oct 2002 15:43:28 GMT
On Saturday 19 October 2002 04:40 am, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> hi steve
>
> interesting and useful comments.
>
> improved caching is something that i want to look at once this release is
> out of the way, so i think that probably the best thing to do would be to
> go without testing (of this fix) for this release.
>

If the other tests pass, then it's at least correct to the first order. And 
the patch appears to be correct.

> if you'll hang around, maybe we can all try to work out some good
> strategies for cache testing and maybe open out this topic to other
> components which are likely to have similar needs (eg. collections, lang,
> reflection).
>

I'm not planning on going anywhere.


> - robert
>
> On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 11:33 PM, Steve Downey wrote:
> > If an API can't be tested, I tend to think there is something wrong with
> > it.
> > I've occasionally resorted to using protected deprecated methods to
> > create a
> > 'Testable' version of a class. Our practice is to have the tests in a
> > different package than the classes being tested, so package scope doesn't
> > help.
> >
> > Another tack, for aspects like cacheing, which really need to be
> > invisible, is
> > to add instrumentation. Either some way of quering cache stats, or
> > registering a callback or event handler for cache misses.
> >
> > In practice, I like to be able to monitor the performance of a cache. The
> > cache strategy might need to be changed, or the cache dumped entirely, if
> > the
> > cache just adds overhead. The application shouldn't care about caching,
> > but
> > the management of the app might.
> >
> > On Friday 18 October 2002 03:01 pm, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >>> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:47:07 +0100
> >>> From: robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >>> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> >>> <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> >>> <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org> Subject: Re: [beanutils] ready for
1.5
> >>> release?
> >>>
> >>> the patch looks ok.
> >>>
> >>> since it's a fix for a caching bug and all the caching code is private
> >>> to
> >>> the class, it's going to be very hard to create a test case without
> >>> changing some of the variables from private to package (say).
> >>
> >> This is an area that I've often wondered about -- how do most people
> >> deal with writing unit tests for this sort of stuff?
> >>
> >> In principle, I think it'd be OK to make things package instead of
> >> private, if we also seal the JAR file (i.e. add a "Sealed:" attribute in
> >> the manifest) to prevent application classes from declaring themselves
> >> into the org.apache.commons.beanutils package and therefore gaining
> >> access
> >> to these variables.
> >>
> >>> it shouldn't be too hard to create a test case but the question is
> >>> whether it's worth altering the API to do so. if the general feeling is
> >>> that a test case for this issue is worth making this change, i'll take
> >>> a
> >>> look at writing one now.
> >>>
> >>> - robert
> >>
> >> Craig
> >>
> >>> On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 07:29 PM, Scott Sanders wrote:
> >>>> With the exception of 12728/12458.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have not yet looked at creating a test case for it, but I do believe
> >>>> the patch is solid.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have attached it if you get a chance to look at it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other than that, I think we are ready.
> >>>>
> >>>> Scott
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: robert burrell donkin
> >>>>> [mailto:robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk]
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 11:24 AM
> >>>>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> >>>>> Subject: [beanutils] ready for 1.5 release?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> are we ready for a beanutils 1.5 release?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - robert
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> >>>>> For
> >>>>> additional commands,
> >>>>> e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>  --
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>>> <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache. org>
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>>> <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache. org>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>> <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org> For additional
> >>> commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
> > org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.
> > org>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message