----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [Commons] Testing "sub-components"
> "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Right now, I'm not positive that there would be enough common operations to > > make it worthwhile, but I think it's worth considering. Perhaps: > > > > Lang: TestObject, ? > > IO: TestSerialization, ? > > Collections: TestMap, TestCollection, TestList, ? > > A promising idea. Any reason not to include the more > generic/re-usable classes in the main JAR? Only that we might have unncessary interdependencies. For example, it's quite likely that the Collections testing classes will make use of Serialization utility methods in the IO testing classes, but that's a poor reason to make Collections itself dependent on IO. Of course, some of that you can get around with documentation (Collections is dependent on X, except for its testing classes which are dependent on X and Y. - Morgan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
