I agree mostly to what you said. But, a custom runner can relax the requirement about configuration method in test class by a suitable substitute value or provide an alternative way of configuring the exam runtime.
Sahoo On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Harald Wellmann <[email protected]>wrote: > Some of these internal API improvements are already under way, to support > @Before and @After for JUnit and to support TestNG. > > In general, Pax Exam should be configured by @Configuration methods and > other annotations, there should be no need to override Pax Exam's > JUnit4Runner. > > What exactly are your requirements regarding Maven configuration? There are > configuration options like versionAsInProject() or scanPom() which might be > able to solve your problem at least partially. > > And if not, we're happy to improve the configuration options once we > understand the use case and see that the available options are not > sufficient. > > Best regards, > Harald > > Am 25.08.2011 14:47, schrieb Toni Menzel: > >> Its made as an encapsulated component mostly because internals when >> interacting with junit4 API are not the best of the world. Due to be >> improved. >> >> On Aug 25, 2011 4:48 AM, "Sanjeeb Sahoo" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > Looking at the source code and the comments from JUnit4Runner, I see >> that >> > only way to write a custom JUnit4Runner is to copy, paste and change >> the >> > logic in a new class. Is there any particular reason why the method >> > addConfigurationsToReactor() is not protected? That should have allowed >> > someone to create custom runners like MavenConfiguredJUnit4Runner? >> > >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/**mailman/listinfo/general<http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general> >
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
