On 5/11/09, Edward Yakop <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 19:05, Toni Menzel <[email protected]> wrote: >> I guess thats a very good idea. Still, i would implement those things >> as separate execution strategies so one can sacrifice speed for >> side-effect tradeoffs. >> >> Another (probably interesting) strategy is to launch the tests, as >> they do currently, in parallel. So they will get their own rmi port, >> paxrunner cache etc. Of cause this really scales when sharing >> downloaded artifacts at least. > > How slow does the test bootstrap if the artifacts are available? > Perhaps we just need to quantify this before making getting test to > run in parallel etcs. Well, as Alin mentioned, much time is spent resolving composites & versions. So, if you specify a concrete version as dependency (not snapshot), then just the "execution" time is left. (remote process spawning is not too time intensive)
> Regards, > Edward Yakop > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > -- Toni Menzel Independent Software Developer - Looking for new projects! Professional Profile: http://www.osgify.com Blog: tonitcom.blogspot.com [email protected] http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open Participation Software. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
