On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale project.
However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find volunteers to
contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to
Hi Greb,
My problem isn't that Shale Test is linked to JSF, it's that MyFaces API is
linked to Shale-Test (while not to any other module). The part of Shale-test
we're using to test MyFaces isn't even linked to Shale other than for
historical reason (no harm intended here, it's merely factual).
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Simon Lessard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the base
test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less condemning
MyFaces API to wait for RI to be released so that Shale-test can depend on
it to be updated to 2.0 API, or forcing MyFaces API to
Hi Greg,
See inline.
~ Simon
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Simon Lessard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the base
test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less
condemning
MyFaces API to wait
-- Original message --
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Simon,
I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
thread on this topic.
However, if
Hi Craig,
The difference is the test framework, or at least a part of it, is linked
exclusively to JSF. More practically, what this mean is that we have a
cyclic reference between the API and the test. For example, the test
framework depends on FacesContext. However, since we like Shale test
Oups, I meant Gary sorry... Dunno why I confused you with Craig...
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Simon Lessard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Hi Craig,
The difference is the test framework, or at least a part of it, is linked
exclusively to JSF. More practically, what this mean is that we have
