I am talking about implementing dynamic class loading for unit testing. I am
assuming nobody minds the performance hit for unit tests? This would allow the
tests to run on a machine with X. It would gracefully leave the test on a
headless machine. On a machine where X wasn't present, the test would catch the
appropriate exception. I think there'd be one thrown.
try
{
//used quotes this time
Class klass = Class.forName("java.awt.BufferedImage");
}
catch (Exception e) //I'd catch the right exception in real code
{
//the class is not available because we are
// on a headless machine
elegantExitFromTest();
}
This way we wouldn't have to rely on shell script to test the code on a
headless box. Best of both worlds thing.
Is a performance hit during unit testing a big deal? I'd consider it outside of
the performance critical portion of the program.
- Drew
Quoting "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Right, but umm, when that runs, X still loads right? or maybe you're
> planning a property to turn it off? You'll need the quotes of course.
>
> -Andy
>
> Drew Varner wrote:
>
> >I'd prefer something more elegant. How about I use...
> >
> >Class.forName(java.awt.BufferedImage)
> >
> >and catch exceptions in the test and handle it gracefully? That way we
> don't
> >have to hack apart the script for headless servers.
> >
> >- Drew
> >
> >Quoting "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>No, I have no problem with it. It would be nice if you put some kind
> of
> >>easy to auto delete filename for it. Something like testBlaBlaAWT so
> >>that those who for some reason choose to build on a headless server
> can
> >>find . -name "*AWT.java" -exec rm '{}' ';' -- but this isn't something
> >>that would affect me as I'd have no reason to run the unit tests on my
> >>server. I guess its possible we may one day move the nightly builds
> to
> >>a commodity server, so best do something that can be easily removed
> via
> >>a script if you don't mind.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>
> >>-Andy
> >>
> >>On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 22:10, Drew Varner wrote:
> >>
> >>>Does anyone have a problem with me importing java.awt.BufferedImage
> >>>
> >>for the
> >>
> >>>purposes of a JUnit test?
> >>>
> >>>I'd like to examine the image (check width, height, etc.) via the
> >>>
> >>Image methods
> >>
> >>>as a sanity check when extracting the byte array. It seems like a
> good
> >>>
> >>way
> >>
> >>>tomake sure the byte array isn't garbage. I don't think JAI or other
> >>>
> >>standard
> >>
> >>>Java Image toolkits support WMF files. I'll investigate more.
> >>>
> >>>Drew
> >>>___________________
> >>>Drew Varner
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>--
> >>http://www.superlinksoftware.com
> >>http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound
> >>Document
> >> format to java
> >>http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html
> >> - fix java generics!
> >>The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
> >>vote.
> >>-Ambassador Kosh
___________________
Drew Varner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
