On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 23:59, Steve Freeman wrote:
> I'd prefer to keep the test classes separate, I only put them together
> when writing demos.
That's not a reason!
>
> True, you can strip them out by name, but Ant isn't the only development
> environment and there's scope for getting this wrong in a framework for
> supporting testing.
There's scope for the tests becoming ignored as I see it.
>
> b.t.w. are you using an IDE?
Yes VIm (I've tried everything else and I'm not impressed). Still
waiting for someone to convince me otherwise.
>
> Steve
>
> From: "Jeff Martin" <je...@cu...>
> > I'm currently seperating out the jdk classes from the core mockobject
> > classes hopefully we'll end up with something like this.
> >
> > src/core/
> > src/jdk/common/
> > /1.1/
> > /1.2/
> > /1.3/
> > /1.4/
> > src/j2ee/common
> > /1.2/
> > /1.3/
> >
> > and a build process which builds mock-core.jar, mock-jdk.x.x.jar
> > mock-j2ee.x.x.jar or something similar.
> >
> > The thing I've just come up against is the test package with currently
> > sites in core. This contains the TestExpectationSqlRow which needs to
> be
> > moved to src/jdk/common but I don't think we should have a test
> package
> > in each area. I'd much rather see the tests sit in the same package as
> > the class it's testing, as it makes it obvious there is a test for a
> > class. Tests can then be striped out of the final dist by excluding
> > **/Test*.class.
>
>
>
--
Jeff Martin
Memetic Engineer
http://www.custommonkey.org/
|
