Sam,
I did not want to eliminate the unit testcase since i thought rsitze might want to add
something
else there. I just commented it out so that Gump (and my all-tests) would not fail.
Thanks,
dims
--- Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This seems silly. Why not remove the method from the unit test case
> entirely?
>
> >dims 2002/06/13 10:19:43
> >
> > Modified: java/test/utils TestXMLUtils.java
> > Log:
> > comment initDOMFactory as rsitze renamed it to getDOMFactory AND made it private
>:-)
> >
> > Revision Changes Path
> > 1.11 +2 -2 xml-axis/java/test/utils/TestXMLUtils.java
> >
> > Index: TestXMLUtils.java
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /home/cvs/xml-axis/java/test/utils/TestXMLUtils.java,v
> > retrieving revision 1.10
> > retrieving revision 1.11
> > diff -u -r1.10 -r1.11
> > --- TestXMLUtils.java 18 Oct 2001 13:28:39 -0000 1.10
> > +++ TestXMLUtils.java 13 Jun 2002 17:19:43 -0000 1.11
> > @@ -34,8 +34,8 @@
> >
> > public void testInit()
> > {
> > - DocumentBuilderFactory dbf = XMLUtils.initDOMFactory();
> > - assertNotNull("Did not get a DocumentBuilder Factory", dbf);
> > + //DocumentBuilderFactory dbf = XMLUtils.initDOMFactory();
> > + //assertNotNull("Did not get a DocumentBuilder Factory", dbf);
> > }
> >
> > public void testNewDocumentNoArgConstructor()
> >
> >
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://xml.apache.org/~dims/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
