Thanks Guys, point taken. On 7 September 2011 08:13, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > > > -- My heroes are the ones who survived doing it wrong, who made mistakes, but recovered from them. - Bono
