If all users were like me (permanent broadband connection), I'd agree :) Remember that some folks don't want the source to do development, they just have a requirement that all things must be built from source. Now, I'd think you'd also want to test it after the build, but again, that's just me. I don't think there should be a requirement to force someone to do it.
If there's already a target to download build dependencies, I can't see how it's all that much harder to also have one that only downloads testing dependencies. On 7/21/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I understand the point that it could take longer for slower connections. > > However, again IMO, if someone is doing development on myfaces they > should be doing testing. > > And also IMO as a user of other projects I like to have a test target > that I can use when building others software so I can have some level > of assurance that the build worked. I actually prefer to have that be > part of the dist type target but that consensus does not exist among > the rest of the team so I'm not pushing it. > > If the rest of the team want's a separate download target for getting > the testing stuff I'm fine with that too. > > My $0.02 worth. > > TTFN, > > -bd- > > On Jul 21, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote: > > > It takes 20 seconds for you to download them. > > That doesn't mean it takes 20 seconds for others. > > If they're only used for testing, don't download them unless you're > > doing testing. > > Testing dependencies tend to grow in large projects. > > > > On 7/21/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> OK I've committed the changes. > >> > >> On the download dependencies, there is no real reason not to just > >> download them (IMO) because it takes an additional 20 seconds the > >> first time and then an additional 1 second thereafter (I made up the > >> #'s but its not far off) so I'd just as soon not complicate matters > >> by adding another target to download test dependencies. > >> > >> Next up is Cactus :-) > >> > >> TTFN, > >> > >> -bd- > >> > >> On Jul 21, 2005, at 9:17 AM, Grant Smith wrote: > >> > >> > >>> +1 for EasyMock and it's dependencies. While we're at it, don't we > >>> need junit.jar too ? Also, I would recommend only downloading the > >>> dependencies if you run the 'test-all' (or 'test' for a subproject) > >>> target, not if you run the usual 'dist-all' that most people will > >>> be doing. > >>> > >>> Thanks for doing this Bill !! > >>> > >>> Bill Dudney wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi All, > >>>> > >>>> I've got the first of the EasyMock (http://www.easymock.org) tests > >>>> in place. I have not commited the changes because I wanted to > >>>> get everyone's opinion before introducing a new dependency. There > >>>> are 4 new jars required to use easymock, ams.jar, cglib.jar, > >>>> easymock- classextensions.jar and easymock.jar. The cglib and ams > >>>> dependency are used to mock abstract classes (the default > >>>> easymock.jar is able to mock interfaces without cglib or ams). > >>>> > >>>> With the EasyMock framework I was able to get to 100% code > >>>> coverage of the abstract StateManager class with 5 tests and less > >>>> than 125 lines of actual test code. I'm a fan and have used it > >>>> extensively on other projects. I believe the extra dependencies > >>>> are worth it to get the testing done. > >>>> > >>>> As soon as there is consensus I'll commit the changes to > >>>> build.xml and the actual test code (or by tomorrow afternoon or > >>>> so assuming that a lack of comment is agreement) then move on to > >>>> the cactus test stuff. > >>>> > >>>> Sean: I'll try a couple of different approaches to the build and > >>>> post in the form of a proposal, so your feedback to that thread > >>>> will be most useful :-) > >>>> > >>>> TTFN, > >>>> > >>>> -bd- > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
