Sorry that I didn't know you had problem with it. Can we agree that this is needed? I can work on adding the code by without pulling in Cotta code (I actually have created a jbehave extension in cotta project after I updated to jbehave 1.0).
Once I have the loader re-implemented, I can look and see why there were duplications. On 3/12/07, Elizabeth Keogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Shane Duan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/03/2007 18:17:25: > I remember the idea was to use the pattern that Cotta is using but > pull the code into jbehave namespace so that there will be no > dependency. > > Shall I do that? I can pull them under org.jbehave.util.<something> > Hi Shane, I'm afraid I couldn't make head nor tail of the pattern, which (together with them being unused) was why I removed them rather than extracting cotta. Also, when we were using them we were running up to 3 duplicates of some behaviour classes; I'd be wary of this happening again. If we can ensure that we don't have duplicates, and maybe include some javadocs to help explain how they work, I'd love to see them back in again. Cheers, Liz. -- Elizabeth Keogh [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.livejournal.com/users/sirenian
-- Shane http://www.shaneduan.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
