commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: [Jelly] using bean, junit, etc. tags in core unit tests
Date Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:25:12 GMT
Morgan Delagrange <> wrote on 15/01/2003 10:24:30 AM:
> I don't think of it as a dependency, it's essentially
> just declaring multiple source trees for the test
> classes, and some of those test classes happen to have
> a Jelly tag interface.  It's not an elegant approach,
> but it does allow bean, junit, log, etc. tags to be
> released independently of the core, which I think is a
> good goal.

> Theoretically, do you think that an approach like this
> can be reflected in the generated Ant script?  Even if
> not, it may be worth an extra manual step to creating
> Ant scripts if no better way presents itself.
Sure, the junit tags would just be test source rather than project source.

> > I'd be happier if we could change the tests to not
> > rely on them.
> I'd be fine with that if it didn't affect the
> effectiveness of the tests.  If we end up with equally
> good, non-convoluted tests, +1.
> > I'm currently working on removing the bean code from
> > the core tests. It's 
> > tedious and error prone, but worthwhile AFAIK.
> I was wondering what was going on there.  :)
> Cool.  Even if we did end up including tags like junit
> in the unit tests, I'd prefer core to be completely
> decoupled from bean.

> It's inconvenient, but I think it's important that
> junit tags have a separate release cycle.  We can
> achieve this by including the junit tag classes with
> the test classes or by removing the junit tags in the
> core unit tests.  I'm fine with either, whatever works
> out the best for us.  There may be better approaches
> too; I'm open to suggestions.

Ok, enough 'me too'-ing.
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message