I'm talking about putting WicketTester in a -tests classified jar. It is a 100% core functionality that has to be in the default, normal distribution without having to resort to include yet another jar file in your pom.
Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that -util, -core and -request are merged into one jar. I am not fan of feature jar-itis where each class/package gets its own jar. As for removing Assert.* from our code base, or from WicketTester and replacing them with Args: this removes the IDE support for catching the special JUnit messages and makes them become plain errors instead of failures: the exceptions will not get the special treatment that makes Java development so nice. Martijn On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: > Are you talking about the wicket tester or the maven test scope? > > Kind regards Andreas > On Aug 17, 2011 7:03 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I am really not a fan of those -tests jars. I've seen maven struggle >> with them, and I definitely don't want wicket tester in -tests. that >> would be a -1 from me. >> >> Martijn >> >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> > wrote: >>> I just removed the dependency to JUnit in wicket-util. >>> The licence mini-framework and XML well formed test are moved to >>> wicket-util/src/test and all other projects have new dependency to >>> wicket-util with scope 'test' and classifier 'tests'. >>> >>> Now I think the only dependency in runtime to JUnit is for >>> WicketTester in -core. But I believe this should not be a problem for >>> OSGi because the dependency scope is 'provided', i.e. Maven doesn't >>> bring it as transitive dependency but the user should provide it >>> herself if she wants to use WicketTester at runtime (e.g. for email >>> generation). >>> Am I correct or there is something that I miss for OSGi needs ? >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>> No, the plan is to provide an easy way to review patches. We do not want > to >>>> sidestep the asf here and we'll sqash the changes for simplicity and > provide >>>> them as patches attached to a jira issue once we decide that they are > ready >>>> >>>> Kind regards Andreas >>>> On Aug 17, 2011 9:10 AM, "Martin Grigorov" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> As you know Wicket officially is still in Apache SVN. >>>>> GitHub is a mirror of Apache's Git repo which is read-only. >>>>> >>>>> Pull Requests will make it easier for the (Git) users but then I have >>>>> to extract the patch and apply it in SVN... >>>>> If this step is easy to automate then it will be usable. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Eelco Hillenius >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Did you guys consider working with pull requests on github? Works very >>>>>> well in my experience. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eelco >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Yes, that will create a patch of the whole branch, which is already >>>> there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 15, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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-plugincontaining >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Martin Grigorov >>> jWeekend >>> Training, Consulting, Development >>> http://jWeekend.com >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
