Morgan Delagrange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15/01/2003 10:24:30 AM: > > I don't think of it as a dependency, it's essentially > just declaring multiple source trees for the test > classes, and some of those test classes happen to have > a Jelly tag interface. It's not an elegant approach, > but it does allow bean, junit, log, etc. tags to be > released independently of the core, which I think is a > good goal. +1.
> Theoretically, do you think that an approach like this > can be reflected in the generated Ant script? Even if > not, it may be worth an extra manual step to creating > Ant scripts if no better way presents itself. Sure, the junit tags would just be test source rather than project source. > > I'd be happier if we could change the tests to not > > rely on them. > > I'd be fine with that if it didn't affect the > effectiveness of the tests. If we end up with equally > good, non-convoluted tests, +1. > > > I'm currently working on removing the bean code from > > the core tests. It's > > tedious and error prone, but worthwhile AFAIK. > > I was wondering what was going on there. :) > > Cool. Even if we did end up including tags like junit > in the unit tests, I'd prefer core to be completely > decoupled from bean. +1. > It's inconvenient, but I think it's important that > junit tags have a separate release cycle. We can > achieve this by including the junit tag classes with > the test classes or by removing the junit tags in the > core unit tests. I'm fine with either, whatever works > out the best for us. There may be better approaches > too; I'm open to suggestions. Ditto. Ok, enough 'me too'-ing. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog Work: http://www.multitask.com.au -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
