Since these are all build time tools, another possibility might be argouml-build instead of argouml-core-infra. Of course they could also move to src/argouml-core-tools, but I'm not sure we need all three projects/directories.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Linus Tolke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the directories under src (as well as for the projects from other > projects argouml-cpp, argouml-csharp etc), the ambition is that each > directory is self-contained except for explicit dependencies. If such a > subsystem requires a tool, that tool is located in that subsystem or in a > central place (the Eclipse set-up or tools in the top directory). If several > subsystems requires a tool, that tool is located in each of these subsystems > of in a central place. That sounds reasonable. I don't think aligning the directory structures of our two build environments is in conflict with that. We can probably move FOP to the documentation project/directory since it's specific to that, but otherwise I think all the current tools are project independent. > Why was the cobertura added in this way? So that it would be available for individual developers as well as the CI build server. Seems like it could be useful for the nightly build as well. Having it in the core build.xml file makes it available to everyone in a central place. > Isn't there an Eclipse cobertura plug-in that works with JUnit configurations? I'm not sure, but there was one for jCoverage from which cobertura was forked, so it's certainly possible. Even if there is though, it wouldn't provide coverage reports for the JUnit tests which are run by the Ant build and it most likely would provide results in the GUI instead of the HTML that a developer would want or the XML that a build server would want. Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
