harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] metadata-fest
Date Wed, 03 May 2006 20:39:58 GMT

Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> [ If you don't know/care about either OSGi manifests or Eclipse, then
>>> don't worry, you can ignore this note -- just continue as you are. ]
>>> I'm going through the module manifests and putting in some explicit
>>> imports to satisfy the requirements of the tests within a module.
>>> Since this means that a module will now 'import' (depend upon) a package
>>> only because a test case uses it, I'm marking such imports in the
>>> manifest as 'optional' -- this means that the same manifest can be used
>>> in development and in the JARs that we deploy at runtime (which don't
>>> contain the test code).  The alternative would have been to move test
>>> code out into a separate module but I'm NOT going there!
>> That makes sense.
>>> Similarly, where a module manifest exports a package only to satisfy
>>> somebody else's test code, it is done with a mandatory attribute to show
>>> why it is being imported.
>> :/
>> What's the downside?
> Clutter in the manifests.
>> It doesn't matter now, but in the future, should
>> we consider having the manifests assembled as part of the build based on
>> target?  Talking out of my hat, it sounds like each breaks into two
>> parts, a 'manifest base' and 'manifest test' or -ish...
> Component-based tools work on whole manifests, so unless we wanted to do
> it all manually or roll our own then having bona fide manifests makes sense.


I was thinking we'd just assemble them at build time.  IOW, when doing a 
test build, combine the base and test fragments into the manifest, and 
when doing a build for dist, leave off the test.

Downside is that you can't build/test/package in one shot, which I'll 
admit is a biggie, and one I wouldn't accept either...

> As above, breaking it into two parts can be done by making the impl and
> tests separate components with separate manifests.

But as you noted, that sounds yecchy anyway.... or is it?  it's actually 
cleaner, and there is no need to re-modularize -  just have a 
<module>test.jar manifest along with the <module>.jar manifest?


Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org

View raw message