Sounds reasonable to me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Drew Varner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: java.awt.Image in SummaryInformation
> 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]
