I used the jetty plugin to test the web apps (mvn jetty:run), I have never used WTP (and its m2e integration) before, maybe you should have a look at some other web projects that use maven. I know wicket has a Start.java that starts an embedded jetty.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I found a litte problem: > For some reason the WTP-Eclipse plugin was commented out on the two struts2 > web example projects (empire-db-example-struts2 + > empire-db-example-struts2-cxf). > I have commented them in and run mvn eclipse:eclipse. > For some reason the litte earth symbol that is usually on the top left of the > project icon for WTP Projects is not there, but I could choose "debug on > server". > Then I found, that I got a "Class not found" error. > So I checked the Java EE Module dependencies and found that the dependencies > were not selected. > I selected them but still got the error because for some reason it does not > see to load the empire-db-struts2 classes. > > My questions: > 1. Has anyone managed to run the two web samples projects? > 2. What do we need to change that the run off the shelf? > 3. Does anyone know whether there is a Maven plugin that's sets up the > project for the use with the tomcat sysdeo Eclipse plugin? > > @Francis: About the wiki: > At the moment we have a rather static website. > I don't know whether or how to set up a wiki. > Sorry. > > > > Francis De Brabandere wrote: >> Re: ready for release? >> >> Ok that building.txt is kind of like our readme >> we also need some release task list and I need to look into releasing >> using meven on the apache infrastructure. I know they have a staging >> repository but I'm not sure incubator projects can use it. >> >> Would it be hard to have a wiki set up for our project? Or is that >> planned for after incubation? >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Francis De >> Brabandere<[email protected]> wrote: >> > Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator >> > projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow. >> > >> > As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's >> not >> > that I'm against hiding the logging either >> > >> > Francis >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Francis, >> >> >> >> well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it. >> >> My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for >> every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at >> all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test. >> >> But it's a personal opinion. >> >> Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too. >> >> >> >> The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not. >> >> Is there anything else we can or must supply. >> >> >> >> Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains >> how to build with Maven. >> >> We could adapt this for our release. >> >> >> >> @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion? >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Rainer >> >> >> >> Francis De Brabandere wrote: >> >>> Re: logging of unit tests >> >>> >> >>> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to >> error >> >>> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format? >> >>> >> >>> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a >> file >> >>> in the target folder instead of console? >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > Hi Francis, >> >>> > >> >>> > thanks a lot. >> >>> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set. >> >>> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its >> logical. >> >>> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a >> properties >> >>> file. >> >>> > >> >>> > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting >> the >> >>> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN. >> >>> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much >> >>> benefit in having the log output there. >> >>> > What do you think? >> >>> > >> >>> > Regards >> >>> > Rainer >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > Francis De Brabandere wrote: >> >>> >> Re: revive the release process >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default >> value >> >>> is >> >>> >> provided these are no real exceptions. >> >>> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error >> level >> >>> and >> >>> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j >> to >> >>> >> hide the traces >> >>> >> >> >>> >> What do you think? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De >> >>> >> Brabandere<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> > Hi Rainer, >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer >> Döbele<[email protected]> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested), >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list >> recently, I >> >>> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in >> order >> >>> to >> >>> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell >> all >> >>> >> required legal documents are there. >> >>> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me: >> >>> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including >> some >> >>> >> exceptions. >> >>> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are >> >>> >> confusing. >> >>> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running >> the >> >>> >> unit tests? >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me. >> >>> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for >> >>> voting? >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Regards >> >>> >> >> Rainer >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > -- >> >>> >> > http://www.somatik.be >> >>> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> -- >> >>> >> http://www.somatik.be >> >>> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> http://www.somatik.be >> >>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > http://www.somatik.be >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.somatik.be >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. > -- http://www.somatik.be Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
