Ehrrm, I meant I agree with Andrew (I disagree with Vincent :). Anyway, the package scope is not a big deal now, but it will probably be when we start the new refactoring, because I'll try to hide as many classes as possible then (making them package private). Naturellement, I'd like to hear your opinion about this. -I wouldn't dear to do it without your consent ;-)
Aslak > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aslak > Hellesoy > Sent: 12. mars 2002 00:15 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: XDOCLET UNIT TEST was : RE: [Xdoclet-devel] Re: > [Xdoclet-user] 1.1.2 breakage > > > I agree with Vincent. It's actually bad design to let all classes > be public. > IMO, as much as possible should be package private in order to > make the API > simpler. Expose only what *really* needs to be exposed. Hide the > rest. It's > like private fields and methods. It doesn't hurt to have > everything public, > it's just nasty. > > -So if we some day will refactor xdoclet to use package level classes, the > test's won't work (or even compile). As for jar packaging and > javadocs, it's > piece of cake to exclude the test classes if they follow a simple naming > scheme like ***Test.java using ant's exclude. We have a refactoring coming > up pretty soon (plugging in xjavadoc), and I'd like to hide more > classes at > the same time. > > Further, I didn't understand the purpose of XDocletTestCase. Why not just > extend TestCase? > > Anyway, it's great that the testing architecture begins to shape! > > /Aslak > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrew > > Stevens > > Sent: 11. mars 2002 23:25 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: XDOCLET UNIT TEST was : RE: [Xdoclet-devel] Re: > > [Xdoclet-user] 1.1.2 breakage > > > > > > A wise old hermit known only as Vincent Harcq > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> once said: > > > > > I just commit this. > > > > > > Rules > > > ======== > > > > > > All Test Java sources will be under "xdoclet.test" and > "xdoclet.retest" > > > (re is for Regression) > > > > > > In directory "core/test" : > > > > > > - src/xdoclet/test : put here unit tests for xdoclet classes. Follow > > > same package naming > > > Example > > > xdoclet.test.xdoclet.XDocletTagSupportTest > > > for unit testing > > > xdoclet.XDocletTagSupport > > > > I thought best practise for junit was to use the same package structure > > under a separate source root, so that the unit tests can access any > > fields/members that use the default (package) scope? Putting everything > > below xdoclet.test & xdoclet.retest like this, you lose that ability > > (although I'm not sure we have anything in there currently using package > > scope anyway). > > > > > > Andrew. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xdoclet-devel mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Xdoclet-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
