The contract resides in Deltaspike: CdiContainer. Offering the implementations a way to receive properties is a general thing. It is countless times in countless apis - you know "main (args)" I assume... Any api that boots something should take args (imo). That some of the underlying apis does not want properties is not the same is "not portable". Since that extra boot(Properties p) does not break those who do not care for properties.
Sounds almost like someone suggested removing boot() and only having boot(Properties p) Anyways I am done discussing this and I am fine with using my fork. I agree that not using test-control is a good idea and I will migrate away from it. On 20 September 2014 16:30, Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> wrote: > it's just not portable since only tomee supports it. > tomee provides something very similar to our test-control, but specific to > features provided by tomee. > imo it doesn't make sense to add something only for one container (to the > api) which is supported by the test-module of that container already. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-09-20 16:24 GMT+02:00 Karl Kildén <[email protected]>: > > > FYI Gerhard said on the list that the boot(Properties p) in CdiContainer > > was a mistake and supporting it in test-control is thus wrong. > > > > I disagree and will branch test-control over n out > > > > On 20 September 2014 16:15, Karl Kildén <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > All those suggestions use properties so I am not sure what to say ;) > > > > > > On 20 September 2014 16:07, Gerhard Petracek < > [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> hi karl, > > >> > > >> it sounds better than DELTASPIKE-577, however, please provide the > > >> use-case/s which can't be done with [1]. > > >> (the other implementations we support right now don't support such > > >> properties anyway). > > >> > > >> regards, > > >> gerhard > > >> > > >> [1] http://tomee.apache.org/alternate-descriptors.html > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2014-09-20 15:28 GMT+02:00 Karl Kildén <[email protected]>: > > >> > > >> > Hello, > > >> > > > >> > Test-Control will bootstrap the CdiContainer for me using the > #boot() > > >> > constructor. However I want it to use #boot(Properties p) > > >> > > > >> > This seems logical since CdiContainer contract has that boot method. > > My > > >> > suggestion is: > > >> > > > >> > public interface PropertiesProvider { > > >> > > > >> > Properties properties(); > > >> > } > > >> > > > >> > @TestControl(propertiesProvider=PropertiesProviderImpl.class) > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Class<? extends PropertiesProvider> providerClazz = > > >> > this.testControl.propertiesProvider(); > > >> > if (providerClazz != null) { > > >> > Properties properties = providerClazz.newInstance().properties(); > > >> > } > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > All user have to do is implement that interface PropertiesProvider > > and > > >> > assign it to the test. > > >> > > > >> > This would save me a lot of trouble... > > >> > > > >> > cheers > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
