On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know git that well! :-) git diff myBranch..master > some.patch > > 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> > >
-- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com
