It has a BSD style license so it would likely be fine even if we did want to
redistribute it, but as you say, we'll only be using it for testing.
If its sounds like it suits you're needs I'd say go for it. Its in ibiblio
so just add it to your pom.xml:
<dependency>
<artifactId>xmlunit</artifactId>
<groupId>xmlunit</groupId>
<version>1.0</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
...ant
On 6/23/06, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi ant, what is the process to determine whether the license for this
piece
of software is acceptable for use during Tuscany development. I assume, if
we use it, we woudln't use it during runtime and hence wouldn't need to
redistribute or reference it from released packages.
S
On 6/22/06, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about using http://xmlunit.sourceforge.net/, i think some of the
> other
> Apache WS projects use that.
>
> ...ant
>
> On 6/22/06, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I want to add a little automated testing to the interop suite to
compare
> > input XML files with output XML files. I note that there is XML
> comparison
> > function in
> >
> > org.apache.tuscany.sdo.test.TestUtil
> >
> > However this test compares everything and I am hitting the problem
which
> > is
> > touched on in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-427, i.e.
my
> > input xml files have comments and my output XML files don't so the
> current
> > equalXML... function always returns false. For my local testing what I
> > have
> > done is edited the class to:
> >
> > 1/ Change all the static operations to non static operations
> > 2/ Add a member variable to describe what should be ignored when
testing
> > for
> > equality
> > 3/ Add outputs in each failure case to record what causes XML files to
> be
> > marked as not equal
> > 4/ Added a string output stream member variable to capture all of this
> > output
> > 5/ Added a getReport method to return the contents of this output
stream
> > if
> > you are interested in why the XMLs differ
> >
> > Now this is all very well and good but of course this breaks anything
> that
> > relies on this class having static methods (it's used in about 50
> places).
> > So I can make a slight change to maintain the static interface. The
> > question
> > is would you rather I:
> >
> > A/ Make a special version for me and not patch the original (not
ideal)
> > B/ Create a patch for the original
> >
> > As an aside there already seems to be two copies of this file, in:
> >
> > tuscany\java\sdo\impl\src\test\java\org\apache\tuscany\sdo\test
> > tuscany\java\sdo\tools\src\test\java\org\apache\tuscany\sdo\test
> >
> > Is there a good reason for this? If not, which one stays?
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
>
>
