On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:31:13 -0300, Wechsung, Wulf <wulf.wechs...@sap.com>
wrote:
2) checks all classes in the "managed" package for the class format and
tapestry-required visibility
This is done by the JVM, so I don't know why Tapestry should do that
too.
I specifically mean it should test ( if possible) that:
* only thing which should be in the managed packages (comps, pages,
mixins, services) are in the managed packages
I can't see how Tapestry can check if a give concrete class in the
components, pages or mixins package is a real component, page or mixin. A
check for interfaces and enums can (and should!) be done, though.
The services package isn't controlled by Tapestry, so there's nothing to
check.
* tapestry imposed visibility rules (eg. component and page fields must
be private)
Tapestry already does that.
If a person deploy an application to the live server without checking
for
errors first, manually or through automated tests, then I think the
problem is responsibility of this person.
Of course! Everything about the app is the responsibility of the dev.
I'm just saying, the framework could increase productivity by providing
a tool that automatically test for these types of errors which lets the
project focus on testing their specific functionality.
Agreed. :)
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer,
and instructor
Owner, Ars Machina Tecnologia da Informação Ltda.
http://www.arsmachina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
