I've closed out GEODE-327 and will create a new gemfire-common subproject for GEODE-328. Please let me know if there's any further input on this.
Thanks, Kirk On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > Seems reasonable, as long as we tackle it piecewise. Going back to the > original purpose, we need a home for @Experimental. We can put that in > gemfire-common and create a separate issue for gemfire-junit -> > gemfire-test and associated code movement. > > Anthony > > > On Sep 12, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Kirk Lund <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm pretty sure we could rename gemfire-junit to gemfire-test. > > gemfire-junit was named only because of gemfire-test existing in a > > different repo. > > > > Currently, all of our reusable testing utilities/classes/rules are under > > src/test/java in either gemfire-junit or gemfire-core (dunit is all under > > the latter because it depends on DistributedSystem). This placement is a > > hold-over from the old build structure. > > > > I think creating a library of test common is a good idea and the testing > > classes would probably move from src/test/java into src/main/java and > then > > be assembled into a jar (such as gemfire-test-common.jar). Is that the > > general idea? > > > > All of our dependencies on gemfire-junit are currently other subprojects > > depending on its build dir which contains the classes from its > > src/test/java (hence no jar). > > > > gemfire-common (reusable non-test-related components) > > gemfire-test (reusable test-related components) > > > > gemfire-core currently has more reusable test-related components than > > gemfire-junit, but all of these (including Annotations, custom Rules, > etc) > > are currently under src/test/java as well. If we're going to clean up > > gemfire-junit(test) and move its classes from src/test/java (except the > > tests) to src/main/java then we should do the same for dunit and other > > reusable test-related components in gemfire-core as well. > > > > -Kirk > > > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jacob Barrett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> You don't want runtime libraries and test time libraries in the same > jar. > >> Putting junit utility and annotation classes that would only be used in > >> junits in a jar that would have to be included in a production class > path > >> is broken. Gemfire-common.jar would imply something common to gemfire at > >> runtime, like string utils, logging, and other cross cutting runtime > >> concerns. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> If you want a library for common test classes then think > >> gemfire-test-common.jar or something. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Jacob Barrett > >> Manager > >> GemFire Advanced Customer Engineering (ACE) > >> Pivotal > >> > >> [email protected] > >> 503-533-3763 > >> > >> For immediate support please contact Pivotal Support at > >> http://support.pivotal.io/ > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Annotations are utilities…? The gemfire-junit name seems unnecessarily > >> restrictive. Currently it only contains annotations related to junit > tests. > >>> Hadoop defines both hadoop-annotations and hadoop-common. > >>> Anthony > >>>> On Sep 11, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Jacob Barrett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> -1 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Reserve common for things common to geode development not related to > >> unit testing. Like utilities classes. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jacob Barrett > >>>> Manager > >>>> GemFire Advanced Customer Engineering (ACE) > >>>> Pivotal > >>>> > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> 503-533-3763 > >>>> > >>>> For immediate support please contact Pivotal Support at > >> http://support.pivotal.io/ > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Kirk Lund <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I filed ticket GEODE-327 to propose renaming gemfire-junit to > >>>>> gemfire-common. > >>>>> We'd like to be able to define common annotations in this > >> gemfire-common > >>>>> and not be limited to code that is specific to junit or testing. The > >> first > >>>>> annotation would be Experimental (see GEODE-328). > >>>>> Please vote on making this change. > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Kirk > >> > >
