The single case that I can see for mystery jars in binary form is when a test case needs to cover malformed binaries or binaries produced on obsolete platforms (does anybody have a Java 1.3 compiler handy).
(don't answer that, I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of people still require 1.3 compatibility) On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Tom Barber <t...@spicule.co.uk> wrote: > Yeah, Paul makes a very good point. When you're new to a platform and > trying to debug tests, trying to find out whats hidden inside mysterious > test jars etc is often tedious at best. Build at test time is ideal. > > Tom > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > > > ...I actually think what we ended up with does make it clearer > > > exactly what is going on.... > > > > Definitely - what Groovy did avoids having Mysterious Binaries in > > their releases, which we don't want. > > > > -Bertrand > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > -- > Tom Barber > CTO Spicule LTD > t...@spicule.co.uk > > http://spicule.co.uk > > @spiculeim <http://twitter.com/spiculeim> > > Schedule a meeting with me <http://meetme.so/spicule> > > GB: +44(0)5603641316 > US: +18448141689 > > <https://leanpub.com/juju-cookbook> >
