commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Digester] working toward a release
Date Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:12:43 GMT
On 31 August 2010 19:29, Simone Tripodi <simone.tripodi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Seb,
> thanks for your feedbacks, always appreciated! I know and understand
> the need of having the package.html files, but what do you think about
> replacing them with the package-info.java files? It should be the
> same, or not? I've been working with them and found it very
> comfortables.

Never used them, so I don't know.

Do they cause any problems with IDEs or Maven?
They are .java files - so do they end up as .class files?

> I'll start staking care of migrating the JUnit dependency, is it fine
> for you just adding the @Test annotation on existing methods, without
> renaming them? The number of tests is quite large... :P

I would not bother with converting the existing tests.

> Thanks in advance, have a nice day,
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:09 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 August 2010 17:02, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 31 August 2010 14:39, Simone Tripodi <simone.tripodi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Rahul,
>>>> I just added the xdoc version of the documentation present in the
>>>> package.html files.
>>>
>>> The package.html files are normally used to annotate the Javadoc output.
>>>
>>> However in this case these files have got a lot more content than is
>>> normally present in the Javadoc.
>>>
>>>> Do you think these last can be removed, since
>>>> would be redundant with the new developers guide?
>>>
>>> There should at least be minimal package.html files for Javadoc usage,
>>> so I don't think the files should be removed entirely, but they could
>>> be replaced with much simpler versions.
>>>
>>>> At this stage, we
>>>> should maintain two different data sources with same information, I'd
>>>> propose to drop the existing one, but let choose together.
>>>> Another small question: in src/conf there is a MANIFEST.MF[1] file
>>>> that contains informations that maven can generate automatically, do
>>>> you think we can drop it, when dropping the ant build?
>>>
>>> +1 to dropping MANIFEST.MF.
>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance, have a nice day!
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/digester/trunk/src/conf/MANIFEST.MF
>>>>
>>
>> Forgot to add - could update JUnit to the latest 4.x release, i.e. 4.8.1
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message