> > Ehrrm, I meant I agree with Andrew (I disagree with Vincent :).
OK, I did understand ;) > > 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 > ;-) No problem, I mean when it is needed, well it is needed ... > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
