"Leo Simons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 believe that mina was the only one with a significant number of dependant projects (and, it still won't build since it now requires Maven2 :). JacORB, jdbm were also on the list. I think that their were about 4 or 5 others, but I don't remember them off the top of my head. >> > 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]
