Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-23 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 11:04, Marc Portier ha scritto: I've been largely skimreading this list last couple of weeks so maybe I missed an important update on the svn switch for cocoon? IIRC there was going to be a spot for these kind of efforts? In any case it would be nice to have something

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-23 Thread Brian McCallister
For what its worth, Spring is very much developed along the lines of an ASF meritocracy, uses the ASL 2.0, has thriving developer and user communities, and releases early and often. Other than not being an ASF project, it is a model ASF project =) -Brian On Jul 22, 2004, at 10:10 PM, Antonio

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-23 Thread Steven Noels
On 22 Jul 2004, at 21:52, Sylvain Wallez wrote: My opinion is that what refrains us to move is that the container contract is deeply engraved in every component in our code base. Whatever solution we choose, we must take greate care to hide as much as possible the chosen container in the lower

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Reinhard Poetz
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 12/lug/04, alle 18:23, Marc Portier ha scritto: think so too, just needs more wild thinking and somebody doing :-) Since I'm getting more and more bored with my daytime job, I ended up doing something:

RE: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Reinhard Poetz wrote: I think it will be a question of doing it. :) If Ugo presents a functional prototyp of Spring that supports Real Blocks and which can be made backwards compatible to 2.1 sitemaps and flowscripts I wouldn't have arguments against it :-) Yepp. Is anyone else

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Reinhard Poetz
Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Reinhard Poetz wrote: I think it will be a question of doing it. :) If Ugo presents a functional prototyp of Spring that supports Real Blocks and which can be made backwards compatible to 2.1 sitemaps and flowscripts I wouldn't have arguments against it :-)

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Jorg Heymans
snip Ugo, tests help but don't really buy us anything: have a community that is strong and diverse enough to do the regression testing for us. In a commercial world this would sound like : Have enough customers that are willing to put up with the bugs we could (might) have caught with better

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Reinhard Poetz
Jorg Heymans wrote: snip Ugo, tests help but don't really buy us anything: have a community that is strong and diverse enough to do the regression testing for us. In a commercial world this would sound like : Have enough customers that are willing to put up with the bugs we could (might) have

Tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 01:18, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto: Ugo Cei wrote: Agreed, but even if we cannot prove that code is correct with unit tests alone, we can at least hope that - statistically - code that has 100% test coverage will have less bugs than code that has 10% test coverage.

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Marc Portier
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 12/lug/04, alle 18:23, Marc Portier ha scritto: think so too, just needs more wild thinking and somebody doing :-) Since I'm getting more and more bored with my daytime job, I ended up doing something:

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: ... Result, I'm -1 on Spring because we can't control it and -0.5 on Merlin/Fortress/Geronimo because they are other communities with other interests. I agree but... I say we write our stuff and be done with it once and forever. ... if he wants to try Spring, why stop

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 01:28, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto: I say we write our stuff and be done with it once and forever. I agree with you on one thing here. Depending on an external community for our foundations is a BIG risk. But I also want to balance risks against benefits. Spring is

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 03:10, peter royal ha scritto: have you considered picocontainer at all? i would *LOVE* to see the core shuffled about. i want to be able to nest the containment of cocoon's core objects in order to share them between multiple cocoon instances, and being built upon an

[butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Marc Portier
Ugo Cei wrote: (Note to self: rewrite unit tests so that they don't depend on BeanFactory). yes and no: I've seen myself do both: have tests that go on detail level and just wire beans themselves in the setup() but also: have tests that use the beanfactory to do so (using a stupid base class

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 08:30, Reinhard Poetz ha scritto: I think it will be a question of doing it. If Ugo presents a functional prototyp of Spring that supports Real Blocks and which can be made backwards compatible to 2.1 sitemaps and flowscripts I wouldn't have arguments against it :-) My

Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 10:34, Marc Portier ha scritto: still have to get into your actual code sample though, by the way: could we arrange having a cvs somewhere? How about cocoondev.org? Is the migration over? I asked Steven some time ago about hosting the SpringPetstore block and he askde

Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Marc Portier
Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 10:34, Marc Portier ha scritto: still have to get into your actual code sample though, by the way: could we arrange having a cvs somewhere? How about cocoondev.org? Is the migration over? I asked Steven some time ago about hosting the SpringPetstore

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Ralph Goers wrote: Let's not mix concerns: cocoon has few tests, agreed, but this has nothing to do with the architecture. It does in the sense that you can't prove that you haven't broken it. Avalon is not the reason why people didn't write tests for cocoon. This is an open source project and a

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Jorg Heymans wrote: snip Ugo, tests help but don't really buy us anything: have a community that is strong and diverse enough to do the regression testing for us. In a commercial world this would sound like : Have enough customers that are willing to put up with the bugs we could (might) have

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Marc Portier wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: For sure it doesn't save us energy, we already have that container build. Cost of building is a fraction of the cost of maintaining? dude, have you ever tried to change anything in the avalon framework? -- Stefano. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 12:20, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto: Avalon is not the reason why people didn't write tests for cocoon. This is an open source project and a do-ocracy: if you think tests are important, write them and contribute them. We never said no, go away with your stupid tests.

Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Marc Portier wrote: I've been largely skimreading this list last couple of weeks so maybe I missed an important update on the svn switch for cocoon? Yep. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-devm=109043692326007 Vadim

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Jorg Heymans
tests help but don't really buy us anything: have a community that is strong and diverse enough to do the regression testing for us. In a commercial world this would sound like : Have enough customers that are willing to put up with the bugs we could (might) have caught with better unit-test

Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 10:34, Marc Portier ha scritto: still have to get into your actual code sample though, by the way: could we arrange having a cvs somewhere? How about cocoondev.org? Is the migration over? I asked Steven some time ago about hosting the SpringPetstore block

Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Upayavira
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: What about a mailing list? We're having an unpleasant discussion about creating mailing lists on the community list... ugh IMO the right thing is to ask a vote for it, and then ask infra to set it up as per the Cocoon PMC decision. I don't want to see another

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Jean-Claude Moissinac
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ralph Goers wrote: Let's not mix concerns: cocoon has few tests, agreed, but this has nothing to do with the architecture. It does in the sense that you can't prove that you haven't broken it. Avalon is not the reason why people didn't write tests for cocoon. This is

Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 15:17, Nicola Ken Barozzi ha scritto: As I tried to explain, as a Cocoon committer you should be able to experiment in a branch. As soon as the SVN conversion is over, you can create a butterfly branch and all Cocooon committers can work there if they want to. Pardon

Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Dave Brondsema
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 15:17, Nicola Ken Barozzi ha scritto: As I tried to explain, as a Cocoon committer you should be able to experiment in a branch. As soon as the SVN conversion is over, you can create a butterfly branch and all Cocooon

Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 15:17, Nicola Ken Barozzi ha scritto: As I tried to explain, as a Cocoon committer you should be able to experiment in a branch. As soon as the SVN conversion is over, you can create a butterfly branch and all Cocooon committers can work there if they

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Sylvain Wallez
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: snip/ Result, I'm -1 on Spring because we can't control it and -0.5 on Merlin/Fortress/Geronimo because they are other communities with other interests. I say we write our stuff and be done with it once and forever. My opinion is that what refrains us to move is that

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-22 Thread Antonio Gallardo
Nicola Ken Barozzi dijo: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: ... Result, I'm -1 on Spring because we can't control it and -0.5 on Merlin/Fortress/Geronimo because they are other communities with other interests. I agree but... I say we write our stuff and be done with it once and forever. ... if

Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))

2004-07-22 Thread Antonio Gallardo
Upayavira dijo: Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: What about a mailing list? We're having an unpleasant discussion about creating mailing lists on the community list... ugh IMO the right thing is to ask a vote for it, and then ask infra to set it up as per the Cocoon PMC decision. I don't

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 12/lug/04, alle 18:23, Marc Portier ha scritto: think so too, just needs more wild thinking and somebody doing :-) Since I'm getting more and more bored with my daytime job, I ended up doing something: http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/ButterflyManifesto Comments are

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Leo Sutic
Ugo Cei wrote: Since I'm getting more and more bored with my daytime job, I ended up doing something: http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/ButterflyManifesto Comments are welcome, flames /dev/null. Comments: 1. Butterfly is an experiment aiming to implement a (simplified) Cocoon clone but based

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Marc Portier
Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 12/lug/04, alle 18:23, Marc Portier ha scritto: think so too, just needs more wild thinking and somebody doing :-) Since I'm getting more and more bored with my daytime job, I ended up doing something: http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/ButterflyManifesto Comments are

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 21/lug/04, alle 13:37, Leo Sutic ha scritto: 1. Butterfly is an experiment aiming to implement a (simplified) Cocoon clone but based on Spring instead of Hibernate Don't you mean: based on Spring instead of Avalon Of course. Typo corrected. 2. Strive for 100% unit test coverage A bit of

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 21/lug/04, alle 17:49, Marc Portier ha scritto: regarding the blocks issue however we will also need to cover classloading-shielding (spring doesn't do it afaik) and I'ld really like us to do that based on jars in a merlin-like repo (just like merlin does it) (actually I need

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Antonio Gallardo
Ugo Cei dijo: Il giorno 21/lug/04, alle 13:37, Leo Sutic ha scritto: 1. Butterfly is an experiment aiming to implement a (simplified) Cocoon clone but based on Spring instead of Hibernate Don't you mean: based on Spring instead of Avalon Of course. Typo corrected. The typo was because Ugo

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 21/lug/04, alle 23:29, Antonio Gallardo ha scritto: The typo was because Ugo has Hibernate between eyebrow and eyebrow ;-) Would you rather have OJB there? ;-) Oh by the way, the next version of Spring will have OJB support, so we could make a SpringPetstore version that supports both,

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 21/lug/04, alle 13:37, Leo Sutic ha scritto: 1. Butterfly is an experiment aiming to implement a (simplified) Cocoon clone but based on Spring instead of Hibernate Don't you mean: based on Spring instead of Avalon Of course. Typo corrected. 2. Strive for 100% unit test

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 12/lug/04, alle 18:23, Marc Portier ha scritto: think so too, just needs more wild thinking and somebody doing :-) Since I'm getting more and more bored with my daytime job, I ended up doing something: http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/ButterflyManifesto Comments are

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Marc Portier
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ugo Cei wrote: snip / Agreed, but even if we cannot prove that code is correct with unit tests alone, we can at least hope that - statistically - code that has 100% test coverage will have less bugs than code that has 10% test coverage. Unfortunately, my impression is

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread peter royal
On Jul 21, 2004, at 7:28 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ugo Cei wrote: Since I'm getting more and more bored with my daytime job, I ended up doing something: http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/ButterflyManifesto Comments are welcome, flames /dev/null. have you considered picocontainer at all? i would

Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-21 Thread Ralph Goers
At 7/21/2004 04:18 PM, you wrote: Ugo, tests help but don't really buy us anything: have a community that is strong and diverse enough to do the regression testing for us. I couldn't disagree more. Unit/functional tests help tremendously in verifying that a new release is still compatible with

The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)

2004-07-20 Thread Ugo Cei
Il giorno 12/lug/04, alle 18:23, Marc Portier ha scritto: think so too, just needs more wild thinking and somebody doing :-) Since I'm getting more and more bored with my daytime job, I ended up doing something: http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/ButterflyManifesto Comments are welcome, flames