agree. great point. On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Matthieu Morel <mmo...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales < > g...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> >> I just wanted to give a suggestion on an issue. >> >> >> > - test package names: I started using prefixing by test.s4, in order to >> > avoid any confusion with other classes from code. I'm ok for prefixing >> > tests >> > with org.apache.s4, but I think it should at least be org.apache.s4.test. >> > Which naming scheme do we choose? >> > >> > >> In my experience, putting tests in the same package as the class being >> tested helps a lot with interface design, i.e. you don't need to make a >> method public to make it testable but you can use the default package >> visibility and yet not include it in the package-level API. This makes it >> cleaner what the API itself is. >> > > Thanks Gianmarco, interesting suggestion! I was looking towards avoiding any > possible confusion between test and core classes (especially during > autocompletion), > but you have a better point for a different approach. > > I'm personally ok for following your recommendation, and can take care of > changing > existing tests, if no one disagrees. > > >> >> An easy way to separate tests and source code is to have a /src >> subdirectory >> and a /test subdirectory with mirrored source trees below (so you have >> src/org/apache/s4/ and test/org/apache/s4/ and classes in these two >> locations are in the same package). >> > > We already have that, i.e. we have a project structure similar to > maven-built projects. > > > Matthieu >
-- -leo
