Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: CVS Resolver supports XML Catalogs 1.1
From: robert burrell donkin <rdonkin@apache.org>
To: commons-dev@xml.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <87hdiaoig0.fsf@nwalsh.com>
References: <8764z2wgv6.fsf@nwalsh.com>  <87hdiaoig0.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:33:55 +0100
Message-Id: <1113424435.9004.11.camel@knossos.elmet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 10:33 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say:
> | The XML Catalogs spec has been revised by the OASIS Entity Resolution
> | Technical Committee. We've added two new entry types. As it turns out,
> | one of them was the test case I used for extensibility, so it won't
> | be hard to implement the new types :-)
> 
> I checked in the updated code this morning. The resolver now supports
> systemIdSuffix and uriSuffix as defined in the XML Catalogs V1.1
> Committee Specification.
> 
> And I added the bare beginnings of a JUnit test framework. I don't
> really understand JUnit and Ant integration so I don't think it works
> unless your CLASSPATH is setup right. I'd like to fix that,
> suggestions welcome.

there are two basic options for ant and junit integration: either use
the ant task or run the appropriate junit class from a java task. using
the ant task is easier but invocation from java sometimes allows greater
control. 

there are a couple of other things which might be worth thinking about. 

the xml-commons layout is a little bit unusual. most apache java
projects (and most tools) have now consolidated on a strategy that
separates components. if this strategy were adopted, which and resolver
would be organised more like:

xml-commons  - which    - src -  java
             |                |- tests
             - resolver - src -  java
                              |- tests

the other is considering using maven. you would need to adopt the
standard layout and naming conventions but then maven would take care of
setting up stuff like unit test environment. the only downside would be
that i'm uncertain as to how well maven plays with forrest...

- robert