Mike Samuel wrote: > 2009/8/25 David-Sarah Hopwood <[email protected]>: >> Mike Samuel wrote: >>> 2009/8/25 David-Sarah Hopwood <[email protected]>: >> [...] >>>> It may not be obvious to "Commercial Contributors" that they are taking on >>>> this liability by redistributing Caja, so at the very least this license >>>> gotcha should be documented in the top-level Caja license, so that anyone >>>> who wants to can strip out Emma (it is just a code coverage tool, right?) >>> >>> Hmm. This is something that's loaded at runtime by ant when we build >>> coverage. >>> No Caja code references anything in the Emma namespace. >> >> OK, but if it is bundled with the Caja distribution, then it still >> introduces the above liability hazard for any commercial redistributor. > > Do you have personal experience with any of the alternatives?
No, sorry. I've never done coverage testing for Java code. Emma and Cobertura seem to be the two most commonly used Java test coverage tools. Googling "Emma vs Cobertura" turns up lots of stuff worth reading. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
