On 9/20/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1
If you're forced to run unit tests via a main() invocation, why not > write a unit-test plugin that calls this type of test, and formats > errors/output so it can be integrated into the unit tests reporting > features, rather than write a plugin that's sole aim is one-off, custom > configuration on a per-POM basis, and has no hope of ever being reusable > or scalable? Oh, this is simple because I have encountered it before. The main reason I have to have a separate process is because some developers are not enlightened enough to just throw an exception and instead they'll dump something in a log and them call System.exit(). Thus, I can't run their code in my process. Another case is where a you need to run a process across a series of resources (i.e. files) one at a time, perhaps for code generation. Some processes may load native libraries and you can't have then loading a library more than once in a process's lifetime, so you again need to run this in a separate process. I guess I don't understand what's wrong with writing mojos to wrap > specific command-line-driven use cases...? > > - -john > > Wendell Beckwith wrote: > | Probably because I'm not aware of what your talking about. Nonetheless, > | while there may be another way of doing what I need, the ability to > simple > | specify a command line to a java process that is something that has > | tremendous capability. Can users overdo it sure, but in an effort to > protect > | clueless users from themselves, should we prevent more advances > users/plugin > | developers from achieving their needs. I'm a big eclipse and firefox > user, > | but I don't dictate that everyone on my team has to do as I do because I > | believe it is the "one true way" for IDEs and web browsing. > | > | Wb > | > | On 9/20/05, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > |> > |> > |>>-----Original Message----- > |>>From: Wendell Beckwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > |>>Sent: mardi 20 septembre 2005 19:15 > |>>To: Maven Users List > |>>Subject: Re: [m2] reasons for sticking with maven > |>> > |>>John is basically stating the very thing that I'm against in the > |> > |>statement > |> > |>>below. I have a 3rd party command line utility from > |>>www.agitar.com <http://www.agitar.com> <http://www.agitar.com>< > http://www.agitar.com>, > |>>that basically does unit tests against our code. I want to write (and > |> > |>have > |> > |>>started writing) an M2 plugin to execute the java command line for the > |>>agitation process from my plugin. All I need now to complete my plugin > |>>besides more hours in a day is a plugin that will allow me to execute a > |>>java > |>>command line. Now my plugin will integrate with the maven lifecycle > |> > |>during > |> > |>>the test phase. However, first I'm told to use the maven-execute-plugin > |>>and > |>>then another dev states that it's bad and wants to see it eliminated, > |> > |>I'm > |> > |>>left thinking WTF!? This *helps* me adopt maven and the process, not > |>>hinders > |>>it. My whole purpose for writing the plugin was so that I could make > the > |>>plugin once and the other groups here and else where since I would open > |>>source it would be able to reuse it. Is this not what maven is for? > |> > |>Just to muddy the waters: why don't you use commons-exec from your > |>plugin's > |>java code to execute your process? > |> > |>[snip] > |> > |>Thanks > |>-Vincent > |> > |> > |>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > |>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |> > |> > | > | > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFDMEkBK3h2CZwO/4URAkV4AJ91AZVpovMtVrVziGZGb1dBKOQv2wCfSrY9 > oShApxHT8sNeu/om38WwQKY= > =kv4h > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
