There is a lot of FUD here but i don't feel strongly about the whether the itests use the base jar or pom so if someone wants to change those fine. I do want to continue using the jar though, its clearly much simpler for users, i can see that and i know users who have tried it agree. So i would like to keep it tested with the compliance tests and i would like to keep demonstrating it in the samples.
...ant On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > +100 for the POM! > The dependency on base-runtime jar causes not only development time issues > (circular OSGi dependencies, missing project references), but also runtime > issues (duplicate service declarations). > Thanks, > Raymond > ________________________________________________________________ > Raymond Feng > [email protected] > Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com > Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com > ________________________________________________________________ > On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Mike Edwards wrote: > > On 02/12/2010 08:49, Simon Laws wrote: > > I note that many of the itest poms now depend on the base-runtime jar. > > I recognize the need to test this jar if we're going to ship it but it > > makes development a bit of a pain, i.e. you have to re-build the jar > > to include any changes before you re-run the test. I've changed any > > tests I'm working on locally back to depend on the base-runtime pom. > > Is there a reason all the tests need to depend on the jar? > > Regards > > Simon > > +1 for the POM > > Yours, Mike. > >
