Vincent Massol wrote: > That looks very much like the sample target or scaffold; it builds a > sample war containing unit tests, ... However, we could go also one more > step further, as I've been doing with Cactus : include a full sample > application with build process and directory structure. Thus is shows > not only how to code an application using the library but also to > integrate it in an automated build process. However, it is very suitable > for Cactus as it is a tool that must be integrated with your build > process (as I've done for Scaffold :-)) but probably less interesting > for a library like scaffold which has no specific relationship to a > build process ...
Five years ago, no one was doing unit tests they way they are encouraged to be done today. So, people distributed code archives the way we distribute Struts and Turbine today. The codebase was one thing, and all the applications, including the tests, are another. I'm suggesting that with unit tests now being an excepted part of the development of anything, especially a library, it might be time for a paradigm shift. Perhaps the library *should be* an application for running its own unit tests and documentation. In development, I should be running the tests as I go along, or even writing the tests before drafting the code. So when I build the code, should I not be building the tests that go with the library code, and then running the tests as part of the development process? So is not the test application an integral part of the library codebase? My questions then is this: What is the benefit of distributing the code archive and the unit test application seperately? Are we not saying they are now all part of the same whole? If the unit test application is part of the code archive, then why not distribute the code archive as the test application with the source code included? Right now, I have my CVS archive in one place, and my development webapps in another. Why can't I have it all it all in one place? If there is a good reason, then so be it. But I'm still not clear why distributing Scaffold like this: http://husted.com/struts/resources/scaffold.zip with the package unit tests replacing the "blank application" is a bad idea. I'm not going to veto the change, since I trust your judgment, but I am still curious why we can't do an all-in-one distribution. -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA. -- Building Java web applications with Struts. -- Tel +1 585 737-3463. -- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
