I don't know git that well! :-) On Aug 15, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> 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. >>>> >>>> >> >> >
