On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 10:37:37AM +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is to "solve" the junit stuff right? > > JUnit is the most prominent project to require Java 5 ATM, but hardly > the only one. We've had other projects breaking for months now > because we didn't provide a Java 5 environment.
Oh. Do you have a (partial) list (in your head or elsewhere)? Are these projects "leaf" projects or "core" projects? > > I'm personally not happy with how effectively there's this one > > project run by a bunch of people who don't particulary understand > > enough about backwards compatibility > > I don't think you are fair here. JUnit 4 uses a completely different > approach that has been enabled by annotations. I'm a happy NUnit user > (.NET unit testing framework) and can tell you that using annotations > really is a step forward over the JUnit 3.x approach. Right. The other big one is the template collections (whatever its called, the <Foo>List stuff). I understand how cool and useful it is. I agree I wasn't fair, sorry. However, JUnit is one of the "corest of core" projects, much like Xerces and/or Ant. The ant project is an example of a project which is very aware of its role like that. Log4j is one where its lead to friction in the past but where gump in the end was used as a tool to have a net positive effect on e.g. migration strategies and backward compatibility and the like. I feel that gump is failing in that role with this jdk 1.4 -> 1.5 stuff, and failing in a big way, and I find it frustrating that we're not able as a team to contribute a whole lot to easing this kind of thing and this kind of mess. Its my perception that the people working on JUnit 4 have decided to take a "bite the bullet" (or the "sour apple") approach to this migration, and I think this is wrong, and I know there is no way I can help here or change it and I probably shouldn't try (well, of course I could go and try and change the java landscape by contributing to having open source and "open" style change management processes for the JDK...hey...ehm...), and I'm sorry for mentioning "people" instead of "project" and casting it as a "personal" thing. The big picture is just so ugly. > And when it comes to backwards compatibility, it is very likely that > all our JUnit 3.8 tests in Gump will work with JUnit 4 as well. It's > simply that JUnit wants to use annotations and the only way forward > was to require Java 5 at compile time. Yeah I know. LSD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
