Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Th. Schapitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: mardi 7 d�cembre 2004 11:47 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: Remote Cactus, solved > > Hi Vincent, > > as you might have noted, I uploaded the patch to one of the issues. > As this is my very first patch to an OpenSource project, don't be shy > about critics.... ;-)
Yes, I've seen you had provided a patch. Very cool! Just give me a bit of time to review it (life is hectic ATM). > > Seeing all this references to Cargo, and comparing this to my note > regarding deployment in an earlier mail, what are your plans with the > 'Cargo refactoring'? I've started working on the Cargo refactoring on a CACTUS_17_CARGO_BRANCH branch. I've just committed what I have done so far to show what I have in mind. The file to look at is: jakarta-cactus/samples/servlet/src/scripts/share/build.xml Basically I wanted first to try using Cargo directly. So a Cactus user would use <cactifywar> to cactify a WAR and then using directly the <cargo-*> tasks to start the container, then he would use the <junit> task to start the Cactus tests and again the <cargo-*> tasks to stop the container. Obviously the following step could be to wrap all this using some thin Ant task wrapper that would chain all those tasks. What I would like is to keep the ability for the user to directly be able to benefit from the container support we keep adding to cargo without having to wait for a new version of the cactus wrapper. Simply using a newer version of Cargo should be enough. > > To me, this looks like it would be totally sufficient, if all containers > supported the nested <startup> and <shutdown> tags, or something similar. Could you be more explicit? (maybe I need to look at your patch first?). > > From the point of view of usability, it might be best, if we deprecate > <startup> and <shutdown> and reimplement these tags as subtags > <beforeTest> <afterTest> in AbstractContainer, the rationale beeing, > that the user remains free to choose, what ever he wants to do > (deploying, bouncing the container) with what ever means he likes to > utilize. > > This would also avoid to introduce the cargo classes as dependency into > Cactus. > > Opinions? Could you please give more context as I'm a bit lost to understand what you're suggesting. Are you talking about refactoring the existing <cactus> task? Are you talking about the current <runservertests> task? Are you talking about the <generic> nested element of the <cactus> task? Thanks -Vincent --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
