Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 64.74.244.71 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of geir@pobox.com)
Message-ID: <44213018.3090903@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:08:08 -0500
From: Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com>
Reply-To: geir@pobox.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [result] Re: [vote] Acceptance of HARMONY-39 : Contribution of
 beans, regex and math class library code
References: <43E21900.1060508@pobox.com>
 <43F087F3.6000003@pobox.com>	 <441E3683.4030907@gmail.com>
 <441EDE83.3050701@pobox.com>
	 <fcb9f9160603200905s6dd95fag260e3292f3b2f2bb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <441EEA38.6010301@pobox.com>
	 <fcb9f9160603201328p2100d8a2p4e7aae4b99bbc6dc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <441F281C.1050901@pobox.com>
 <fcb9f9160603202341t5f9c883ai441679d19f954d25@mail.gmail.com>
 <441FE311.1090203@pobox.com> <44201B6B.2080405@gmail.com>
 <4420C866.4090600@pobox.com> <4420CB90.8020904@sablevm.org>
In-Reply-To: <4420CB90.8020904@sablevm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Just a random idea...  Why not have a special "testing" mode in the VM
> that would trigger special permissions to code in ".test" packages?

You wouldn't need that when testing in the VM. :)

That's why Tim suggested o.a.h.test.xxxx so then you stay out of package 
  namespace that "belongs" to the boot classpath.

> 
> Actually, this mechanism could act differently:  simply consider
> some.package and some.package.test as being the *same* package (so,
> erase, at loading time, the .test package suffix from loaded classes.
> It could also "combine" the fields & methods of package.Foo with
> package.test.Foo if classes with identical names exist in both packages,
>  so that private methods could be tested.

To me the problem then is that our VM becomes a testing framework - why 
not just have a testing framework?

> 
> Additionally, the testing mode could allow for loading java.lang.*
> classes in user class loaders.
> 
> Of course, this would be a non-standard option, like -Xtestpermissions .
> And, this way, all the test code could reside in files and directories
> that would be separate from the real code.
> 
> Yep, a random idea.  ;-)
>

Not a bad one, but it seems like a special "testing framework" with just 
another name :)

geir


> Etienne
> 
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> testing a.b.c.Foo and you have to do it from a.b.c.test.FooTest, how can
>> you ever do implementation testing of Foo?  It's not an unreasonable
>> ...
>