ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
itest/osgi-tuscany contains tests for an OSGi-based Tuscany runtime. I
haven't included the tests in itests/pom.xml because they need to create
bundles corresponding to Tuscany, and hence require around 100
megabytes.
Since we currently dont have other tests for a multi-classloader Tuscany
environment, and because it is very difficult to ensure that changes to
Tuscany dont add more problems for an OSGi-based Tuscany, I would like
to
add itest/osgi-tuscany to the main build if there are no objections.
There are still many outstanding issues with running Tuscany under OSGi,
but
the test directory contains a harness to enable Tuscany samples to be
run
using an OSGi-based Tuscany runtime, and hence provides test cases for
all
the known outstanding issues (the broken tests are currently commented
out,
but can be turned on as each problem is fixed).
Thoughts? Objections?
Thank you...
Regards,
Rajini
I am already pushing the limits of available disk space. Would it be
possible to provide an alternate profile that would exclude this test?
In fact we could go further and generalize this principle by defining
a "basic regression" bucket and a "full test" bucket, selected by
profile. The Continuum build would run the "full test" bucket.
Developer builds could use "basic regression" or "full test" at the
individual developer's discretion.
As a first step towards defining what tests go into what bucket, I'd
suggest that tests that consume a lot of disk space or take a long time
to run should only be part of the "full test" bucket.
Simon
I'm starting to really like the look of this osgi work and think it would be
good to try to make it more tightly integrated with the existing runtimes
and distributions we have. I don't have any concrete proposal for this yet,
I can understand the disk space issues but when you look at the rest of the
build there's a lot we can do to clean up and reduce the size requirements
of the rest of the code.
...ant
I'll start a separate thread for the build disk space discussion as
it is somewhat orthogonal to the question of adding the osgi-tuscany
itest to the main build.
IMO the osgi-tuscany itest should not be added to the main build
until we have a viable approach for allowing developers to build a
smaller core subset of the code. I don't think this core subset
should include the OSGi-based Tuscany runtime.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
