On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:10:12 +0100, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We just have to make sure we do not introduce that construct.
Which to me seems like an reasonable thing for an automated test to be doing. The things that I'd be considering are if the test takes a lot of time to run or support and how feasable is it that the problem could occur. My default position would be to go for leaving it there, though... > said, we do not so far. I think guarding against JDK bugs can only be > done by just being carefull (and know what potential pitfalls are). What > about the zillion of bugs in other JDK versions? Well, in an ideal world, there'd be tests for them (now that's an idea for an OpenSource project - a set of (plugable) tests to scan a code base for JDK bugs - Could be an Intellij plugin for example) but while no one's suggesting they should be there, it seems odd to remove it unless there's a specific reason... On the other hand, if it does take non-trivial time to run, it should come out of the unit tests, at least, as that might help with getting them run regularly. /Gwyn ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
