Just a couple of quick comments. -----Original Message----- From: rey malahay [mailto:[email protected]]
> > If it is a question of writing quality/ better code, then adding another > library that supports the quality objective should not be a big deal. The > last time I checked, the Apache Software Foundation was all about > meritocracy. I believe that I am just doing my bit to uphold that value. The interests Adam alluded to extend beyond just the direct interests of the ASF. Adding any new third party code or package is often a very, very big deal for those of us who depend on ASF components such as PDFBox. It creates work in order to pass testing and accreditation and to do all necessary paperwork. If something costs work then the benefit needs to be at least proportional to the cost. There are many good reasons to enable use of mock objects/doppelgangers for unit testing so I don't want to imply that I don't advocate for that. However the disadvantages of including yet-another-package in the distribution outweigh the benefits, imho. Good design patterns can enable mock testing without a framework (and of course, poor designs can preclude it even with a framework). The committers have final say, but I vote -1 on adding a mocking framework to the PDFBox testing harness.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
