[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6783?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Taher Alkhateeb updated OFBIZ-6783:
-----------------------------------
    Comment: was deleted

(was:      <target name="_setup-separated-test-run" 
depends="_check-separated-tests-already-setup" 
unless="_separated-tests-already-setup">
         <java jar="ofbiz.jar" fork="true">
             <jvmarg value="${memory.initial.param}"/>
             <jvmarg value="${memory.max.param}"/>
             <arg value="--testlist"/>
             <arg value="file=runtime/test-list-build.xml"/>
             <arg value="--testlist"/>
             <arg value="mode=ant"/>
             <env key="LC_ALL" value="C"/>
         </java>
     </target>

As for the start-batch issue. I did not understand exactly what you faced? and 
how is it different from pre-patch?)

> Refactor start.java
> -------------------
>
>                 Key: OFBIZ-6783
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6783
>             Project: OFBiz
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: framework
>    Affects Versions: Upcoming Branch
>            Reporter: Taher Alkhateeb
>            Assignee: Taher Alkhateeb
>              Labels: framework, main, refactoring, start
>         Attachments: OFBIZ-6783.patch, OFBIZ-6783.patch, OFBIZ-6783.patch, 
> OFBIZ-6783.patch, StartCommandUtil.java
>
>
> Looking at the main method and design of Start.java looks ugly. The things I 
> would like to fix so far are:
> - the file is too long
> - some variables are not even needed (loaderArgs?)
> - the level of abstraction is wrong
> - main throws an exception!
> - the arguments processing logic is terrible, need to move it to commons-cli
> It's just so messy and ugly to look at. So for me refactoring starts at 
> Start! Given that this is an important file, I will provide a patch to be 
> reviewed by the community before committing just to be on the safe side.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to