On Fri, 2002-03-29 at 12:21, Peter Donald wrote: > On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:25, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > We might even be able to have a default behaviour where the > > **/*Test*.java pattern in implicit so that people don't have to define > > <unitTestEntries> unless they want to exclude something. > > That would not work well with quite a few projects. It is fairly common for > some projects to have both *TestCase.java and *TestSuite.java (or TestAll) > and thius would lead to tests being executed twice.
We just decided against in IRC actually. > BTW is there any support for optional compilation/junit stuff. ie How easy is > it to only compile certain classes if certain jars are in Classpath and so > forth? We threw that one around and initially decided that conditional compilation in a project isn't a great idea because it leads to code that isn't maintained. This is what has happened in the Turbine tree. With the update-jars facility it really isn't that hard to compile everything. This is what we've decided anyway. This might be annoying for things like non distributable JARs but provides some consistency w.r.t. developers are building. Conditional support is easy to add, we've just decided against it at this point in time. > -- > Cheers, > > Pete > > ************************************************* > * Committee: Individuals who can do nothing * > * individually and sit to decide that nothing * > * can be done together. * > ************************************************* > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
