Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cxf-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 41723 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 00:34:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 00:34:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 72981 invoked by uid 500); 21 Mar 2007 00:35:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cxf-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 72950 invoked by uid 500); 21 Mar 2007 00:35:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cxf-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 72938 invoked by uid 99); 21 Mar 2007 00:35:06 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:35:06 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [206.46.252.44] (HELO vms044pub.verizon.net) (206.46.252.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:34:56 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([72.93.84.92]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JF8005VJ9L7P8O6@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:34:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:34:14 -0400 From: Fred Dushin Subject: Re: CXF-438 Patch; HTTP(S) Trust Decision In-reply-to: <460026A0.2070606@iona.com> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org Message-id: <23640DE6-C874-4211-B097-587A1393FBCD@dushin.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <460026A0.2070606@iona.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I think it's fairly a defensible claim that having logic in production code that is only used for testing purposes is bad practice. If you need to hit 100% cvg and can't do it in a unit test, then consider using a system test, instead. -Fred On Mar 20, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Polar Humenn wrote: > Well, I don't understand why we have *if* statements in the code > just to support the testing of the code. But maybe I can consider > it "instrumentation". However, in any case, this explicit use of it > should be documented up the wazzzo to prevent the "Huh??? what is > *this* used for?" that wastes time in discovery.