Hey guys, I just want to jump in here. While I think it a good idea to check license headers via a plugin instead of a junit tests this is not a "no-go" for the osgification. There are various libs out there importing org.junit... in the compile phase instead of the test-phase (although not required). At Servicemix such libs are typically wrapped using the ;optional:=true attribute. Since junit is not required at runtime I think we can go the same way for wicket here.
WDYT? Kind regards, Andreas On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 22:24, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys, thanks for the responses. The repository issue (as well as an > unknown about outside plugins) was a concern, part of why I started a custom > plugin. But if folks are comfortable with it, I think it's the right way to > go. It's used in Brix and it's been very robust and convenient. > > I created a branch at > https://github.com/topping/wicket/tree/myclila-plugin containing the > changes. There are a lot of them and it took most of the day to get it > right. The plugin expects the license header to be formatted slightly > differently (for instance using "/**" instead of "/*" to start a Java > header). Their site suggests using <aggregation>, but that results in all > the configuration being in the parent POM, something that isn't very good > encapsulation of configuration. So I broke it out between projects so it's > easier to maintain. > > As for the specific excludes, I may not have precisely the same excludes > that the old test cases had. I started by copying them to the best of my > perception, then tuned them for the tests (which seems to be the most > sensitive aspect). Can anyone review the patch to see if there are any > obvious mistakes? > > If not, it would be very helpful for the OSGi effort if we could get this > patch applied. Removing the dependency on JUnit from wicket-util is pretty > important to the effort, and I think this provides benefits to the project > moving forward as well. > > Please let me know what I can do to facilitate. > > Kind regards, Brian > > On Aug 14, 2011, at 9:05 AM, jcgarciam wrote: > > > The problem with com.mycila.maven-license-plugin:maven-license-plugin > > as far as i remember is that is not yet published in central maven > > repository, so it cannot be used without adding their repo. in the > pom.xml > > which is a problem if you are trying to get your project deployed in OSS > > Sonatype. > > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Martin Grigorov-4 [via Apache Wicket] < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Brian, > >> > >> The main user of JUnit in production is WicketTester. > >> > >> About ApacheLicenceTest - Jeremy tried to replace it with > >> com.mycila.maven-license-plugin:maven-license-plugin in 1.4.x but > >> didn't finish it. > >> > >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Brian Topping <[hidden email]< > http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3742539&i=0>> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> oic, there's a ApacheLicenseHeaderTest in every project. > >>> > >>> I'm in the process of isolating the junit.framework package to a test > >> dependency so JUnit is not a dependency in production code. If it were > made > >> into a plugin, the instances of per-project ApacheLicenseHeader > >> configuration would need to come from the POM. That's kind of where it > >> belongs (it's part of the build, after all), but it could easily be made > >> into a configuration file that resides in each project to keep the POMs > >> clean. > >>> > >>> Failing that, creating a separate module to contain o.a.w.util.license > >> that is a test scope dependency would be a last resort. > >>> > >>> I'm going to go ahead and create a plugin that reads a configuration > file > >> in each project. Some of the configurations are lengthy > >> (org.apache.wicket.util.license.ApacheLicenceHeaderTest). That would be > a > >> mess in the pom. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Brian Topping wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> Does anyone know why org.apache.wicket.util.license is in > wicket-util's > >> production source directory? I'm guessing it has something to do with > the > >> desire to get the license plugin to fire every time a build is made, but > if > >> that's the case, it would be better handled as a Maven plugin. It's not > a > >> test and it's not a part of any public API. > >>>> > >>>> I'm happy to create a plugin if that's the case, please let me know. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, Brian > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Martin Grigorov > >> jWeekend > >> Training, Consulting, Development > >> http://jWeekend.com > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > >> below: > >> > >> > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/o-a-w-util-license-package-in-production-source-folder-tp3742291p3742539.html > >> To start a new topic under Apache Wicket, email > >> [email protected] > >> To unsubscribe from Apache Wicket, click here< > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=1842946&code=amNnYXJjaWFtQGdtYWlsLmNvbXwxODQyOTQ2fDEyNTYxMzc3ODY= > >. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > JC > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/o-a-w-util-license-package-in-production-source-folder-tp3742291p3742824.html > > Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > >
