----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jordahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:20 AM
Subject: RE: Proposal for Test and Samples Changes
>
> Given my limited ant skills, this looks like a good start.
>
> I would prefer that the component build files are named 'build.xml' so I
can go to a component directory and invoke 'ant' without the -buildfile
argument. It seems as if I cannot build/deploy/test without invoking ant
from the top level. I would prefer to do this from the component directory
(i.e. 'cd samples/echo; ant compile' or 'cd test/wsdl/import; ant test' ).
we can do this; it wont be that hard.
>
> I do like the top level buildTest and buildSample filenames however, and
would expect their default targets to build/test everything.
> I would like to see details on the process of adding a new test in the
unit, functional and WSDL areas.
One thing we could consider (later) is to rework the system so that there is
only one standard build file to build and run each test; we just run it in
the directory of the test and it gets its info from a properties file
e.g we have a toplevel file xml/buildTest.xml that reads in a standard
property file to build and run a testcase
then to call it we go <ant antfile="../../xml/buildTest.xml" dir="." > from
the local build.xml stub; from the toplevel its more
<ant antfile="../../xml/buildTest.xml" dir="test/test1" target="${target}">
<ant antfile="../../xml/buildTest.xml" dir="test/test2" target="${target}">
<ant antfile="../../xml/buildTest.xml" dir="test/test3" target="${target}">
<ant antfile="../../xml/buildTest.xml" dir="test/test4" target="${target}">
this approach has the best scalability; least flexibility.
But if we call down to the build.xml in each dir, that can reflect back up
<ant antfile="../../xml/buildTest.xml" dir="test/test1" target="${target}">
this
-stops the master build knowing the implementation details
-lets us use a common build file where we can, but not where we cant
Thoughts?
