Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of andreas.gudian@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALhtWkcX4TV+skHYeZ2OaSGVxRx7BpHfVHDEzWq19BF8pLwLeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <544F6F3B.2010502@swe-blog.net>
	<CABLGb9yHVXuGVLTo7QyZMAiCC36r-G6HJv3PENf=o2wdt+V4CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKDUN1sc3aY8JLvJQoEiVUipiaGJwpRBCn_7o5XZpsBTzOhOoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABLGb9wwn7pPtp0VB9BBTbzD8F_PTz-wKWb+xm9Hagt+Cgpm+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<544FBB38.9020908@swe-blog.net>
	<CALhtWkcX4TV+skHYeZ2OaSGVxRx7BpHfVHDEzWq19BF8pLwLeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:56:37 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAK2FUK3==1m+bFU79fTf2t_1dRpadw-PAh0wzfUkM-Y5EL6D=g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Ease the usage of Failsafe
From: Andreas Gudian <andreas.gudian@gmail.com>
To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0115eab017bd63050681e24d

--089e0115eab017bd63050681e24d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2014-10-28 17:54 GMT+01:00 Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>:

> Personally, I wonder why we don't merge them.
>
> Failsafe adds some lifestyle phase bindings and then changes some
> defaults. Otherwise, it's a giant anti-DRY. Why not expand surefire to
> have the extra executions with shifted defaults for things like test
> class names?
>

As Surefire and Failsafe are practically the same with only differences in
their lifecycle binding, default values for some of the configuration
parameters and distinct properties for the parameters (e.g. -Dtest=.. vs.
-Dit.test=...), there wouldn't be much to merge. Both are rather slim
specializations of the same abstract mojo implementation.

I can't think of something that you can't technically do with the one mojo
that you can do with the other. Merging them would just make it harder to
configure the different executions for the different phases.

It's just depending on the use case, which of them is already
out-of-the-box configured to match the requirements - or is at least close
to it.


>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Oliver B. Fischer
> <mailsink@swe-blog.net> wrote:
> > @Paul: Yes I think so or we find a way more convenient in this moment.
> >
> > @all: I think this shows perfectly why Failsafe should be integrated as
> > Surefire already is.
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> > Am 28.10.14 16:02, schrieb Paul Benedict:
> >>
> >> Thanks. Now I know when to use this. For my situation, which is
> >> integration
> >> testing against an existing database, I don't need to setup an
> >> environment;
> >> this explains why I never needed to use the plugin. There are other
> cases
> >> the plugin will be valuable, but I wonder if this is why most others
> stick
> >> with surefire. I guess programmers don't scratch unless there's an itch.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Anders Hammar <anders@hammar.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The answer is on the index page of the failsafe plugin [1].
> >>> "If you use the Surefire Plugin for running tests..."
> >>>
> >>> /Anders
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-failsafe-plugin/
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> (to
> >>> mailsink@swe-blog.net>
> >>> https://bitbucket.org/obfischer/bugreport-maven-failsafe.git
> >>> lot
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>

--089e0115eab017bd63050681e24d--