can we have a patch that changes those places to use Args.*? :) -igor
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > Just to provide some personal perspective and it's somewhat off-topic... > there's always a lot of things we can work around here (code can always be > compensated for with more code), but I think there is a responsibility with > all code to "leave it cleaner than you found it". To say it differently, to > me, any amount of effort today to keep things clean is worth it, because > tomorrow (with additional code thrown on), it may take twice as long to undo > it and we may not have options to work around the problem any longer (thus > forcing that we cannot avoid cleaning it up with twice the investment). > > When I looked at the actual usages of JUnit, it was primarily on > junit.framework.Assert in about three or four random files, when in fact the > standing pattern is to use o.a.w.util.lang.Args or throw an > IllegalStateException if there is a problem with incomplete initialization. > > In this case, removing JUnit as a dependency from util in fact improves the > code, and in the process does not bury a dependency even deeper. In fact, > there was a comment in one of the POMs alluding to the question of why JUnit > was a runtime dependency. I don't think I am alone in believing that it > should have been removed. This doesn't answer to > o.a.w.util.tester.WicketTester, but that's better answered in Martin's email. > > Cheers and thanks, > > Brian > > On Aug 15, 2011, at 2:44 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote: > >> 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. >>> >>> > >
