Re: [Junitdoclet-users] exception handling patch (bugfix)

[<ste...@ob...>]

Hi Nicola,

> > The update frequency of JUnitDoclet is not as high as 
> > in other projects, but there is good news in that:
> > 
> >   Don't touch a running system (if it's not nessecary).
> 
> I deemed it necessary. And luckily I have other things to do than
> writing novels - ...

;-)

> No seriously, JUnitDoclet does a wonderful job, but needs change quite
> badly IMO. Important classes are very big (talking about
> DefaultTestingStrategy), and I have not encountered one exception in the
> whole project - everything is done with return values, even errors are
> reported back this way. clearly not that elegant, but works admittedly. 

There are things that need refactoring. True.
 
> > What I don't enjoy in that much detail is a stream of 
> > untested patches, that make our software appear 
> > unstable. To be forced to react on this issue takes 
> 
> Are you afraid of people contributing code and the fact that you cannot
> control what exactly floats around (speaking of patches)? I understand
> up to a certain degree. 

I'm glad you wrote that.

> > Before we release a new version we run a lot of tests.
> > (Testing before the user does, isn't JUnit all about that?)
> 
> 100% ack. and why do 8 of your 105 tests fail constantly, even without
> having touched the code? :) 

The tests passed when we released. And they passed a minute 
ago. Maybe you've changed something else?

> btw, with my patch the exact same 8 tests still fail. is this success?
> ;) 

Not exactly.
   
> > With respect to the goal you try to achive:
> > Is testing an exception really worth complicating any 
> > tool? How often is it used in good programs? In my 
> 
> Sorry, no offence, but exceptions are an integral part of Java and if
> you don't think so, I have no problem with that either. But please let
> the other 95% Java programmers use exceptions, ok? :) 

Sure you can use them. 
 
> > opinion exceptions should be used only in exceptional 
> > cases. So there is very little of them. Right?
> 
> Exactly. And what do you do, if (for example) somebody tries to set a
> negative price on a product? Business as usual? I'd throw them a
> IllegalPriceException right in the face! 

Well, I don't. But I would let the user know too.

> Generally speaking: Programming C in Java is certainly possible, but
> it's like speaking English with French accent. Works, but is suboptimal.

I don't have to use something just because it's there. 
I use it, when I see fit.

Ever thought about encapsulation? What do you think 
of a program spreading IllegalPriceExceptions and the 
knowledge to handle them all over the application? 
(I'd like to suggest a book: "The Pragmatic Programmer" 
or "Der Pragmatische Programmierer" if you prefer a 
german translation.)

> You can check out the exact behavior for yourself, if you are
> interested.

I will look at it later, but I will.
 
> > This email is not ment as an offense. You like our tool,
> > you use it, you spent time to add something which 
> > seems usefull to you. You even shared your idea.
> > That is Open Source. Thank you.
> 
> It is interesting how your email has changed attitude in itself (when
> comparing the first dismissive lines you wrote with this quite nice
> paragraph at the end). 

I didn't change it, while you where reading. ;-)
 
> And yes, that's the way open source works. You don't have to
> like my patches (what the hell reminds me now of Linus? :), but
> I don't have hold back my patches either. After all, open source is
> about freedom, right?

Freedom is important. 

Open Source is about cooperation on behalf of usefull software.
 
> > All I ask is a little bit more testing before someone sends
> > out a message like you did. If someone has an idea to 
> > improve our tool, please send an email to 
> > jun...@ob.... We'll be more than happy to 
> 
> That maybe have been the way it worked until now. 

Your statement does not sound like freedom to me.

> You have to accept that
> there are also creative people out there using the freedom you gave to them
>  - they build their dreams with their own hands and don't have to beg.

Begging? Ever heard of feature requests?

> I certainly won't send bother you with an email if I see that the change 
> is no more than 2-3 hours worth of programming and so can be done by me...

That's ok. You've got the source for that.

Releasing buggy "patches" may be freedom to you, but is
irritating to other users of JUnitDoclet (since they meight
have difficulties to differenciate between the source of a 
patch. I wouldn't even bothered, if your first patch would 
have been working.
 
> > discuss that. And if it seems usefull to us too, it may 
> > even make it into the next release (as do other user 
> > suggestions like configurations for indent levels and 
> > accessor prefixes). 
> 
> I assume I stepped on your toes - I am sorry for that. 

It's not my ego, that was hurt. If only one other user applied 
your patch, he/she meight think different about our tool now. 
That is, what I don't like.

> I am however not
> sorry for my belief in open, direct & fast communication - so I still
> think this patch got out the right time.

Well, you meight try to communicate before you release 
a patch. At least try. That does not limit your freedom, right? 
I guess my responses have been open, direct & fast enough.

> If you don't like my patch being published on sf.net, then drop me a
> line and delete it, so I can put it on my website.

I've made the patches available to a smaller group already. 
If you let me know your website, I meight have a look at it.

> One question: why did you chose the LGPL as license and not the GPL?
> Using GPL software for commercial software engineering is perfectly
> legal - or is there another reason?

<quote source="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">
The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The 
choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL
permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the
ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs. </quote>


Regards,

Steffen Gemkow
--
ObjectFab GmbH
ste...@ob...