>>>>> "graydon" == graydon hoare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This discussion should probably take place on mauve-discuss... graydon> - mauve should be arranged such that: graydon> [ ... great stuff ... ] I think any improvements to Mauve are to be welcomed, and anybody willing to put effort into improving the harness should go for it. graydon> - it uses simple introspection conventions rather than scanning graydon> text in a source tree and writing makefiles for itself When I wrote the original mauve code, I set it up this way because different free java implementations had different class coverage. So if someone added a new test, there was no guarantee it could be compiled against a given class library. Hence, source-level scanning to eliminate tests you know you aren't interested in. This need may be alleviated these days, now that everybody is moving to Classpath. Things were a lot different 5 years ago. graydon> these are not too much to ask; existing JUnit-based suites often graydon> provide some or all these as extensions to the basic TestCase class, graydon> and they make testing feel much more productive. In the past people have also suggested converting Mauve to JUnit. Tom _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
