> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
> Of Aslak Hellesoy
> Sent: mardi 12 mars 2002 0:15
> 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?
In case we need basic definition. Not a big deal. I had already
XDocletRegressionTestCase
>
> 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
