On Dec 13, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Robert Greig wrote:
On 13/12/06, Steve Vinoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem with this is that you're trying to use the examples as
tests,
No, I'm really not wanting to do that.
Then I guess I don't understand what value there is in adding them to
the main build. Where's the benefit? They'll only increase the build
time.
and only compile-time tests at that. If the APIs were properly
covered by unit tests, none of the above would be an issue. I'd
rather see us developing proper unit tests rather than trying to make
user examples serve double duty as tests.
The examples are really designed to illustrate common usage patterns -
e.g. spring integration is not used as a test. I think testing the
examples is useful and important however, although I think that
testing the examples will inevitably be something of a manual process
depending on the example.
I don't think the examples in any way replace tests.
We definitely agree on the manual testing part. I mentioned that in
my response to Martin, in fact. Manual testing the examples will be
required regardless of where they live, I think.
I don't think providing such a jar yields much of a value, given that
presumably the people using Qpid are developers who intend to build
Qpid applications and thus will have their own build environments
anyway, but it's doable either way.
We have found that it is very useful as a sanity check for people that
problems they are having are not related to their build environment
etc. We have several times resorted to supplying some of our users
with a jar telling them to "run this". I think providing at least some
examples that can be run with java -jar <example jar> helps.
OK, I can buy that.
--steve
