From: Bernard V. B. <Ber...@te...> - 2002-11-22 12:01:56
|
Tomas, If the fork attributes would be removed and set to true internally, and (only) the NAntContrib tests would be run using the command line runner, would there be other problems that need to be solved to make the NUnit2 task work for real-world usage? Bernard > -----Original Message----- > From: Tomas Restrepo [mailto:to...@mv...]=20 > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 4:25 AM > To: nan...@li... > Subject: Re: NUnit 2 support (was: RE: [nant-dev] FAQ: The=20 > next NAnt version) >=20 >=20 > John, >=20 > > I noticed that NUnit2Task was executing very different code=20 > based on the > > fork attribute; code that looks suspiciously like the=20 > current code in > > nunit-console. >=20 > I'd like to refactor that code slightly, but that's a different thing > altogether :) >=20 > > Maybe this is a simpler workaround than using exec? >=20 > It is a good workaround for many apps. However, I'd like to=20 > point out two > things: >=20 > - With the current NUnit2 architecture, the fork=3D"false" (the = default) > option makes no sense, as it really, really, only serves to test nant > itself. In fact, fork=3D"true" should be the default, as that=20 > was how NUnit2 > was concieved: a new appdomain is created, and assemblies to=20 > test are loaded > into that appdomain from inside itself (hence all the=20 > problems we have). >=20 > -Even with fork=3D"true", nantcontrib tests still cannot run.=20 > The problem is > that nantcontrib requires both access to nantcontrib's and=20 > nants dlls, and > with the current architecture this is hard to do without some=20 > rather ugly > hacks (at least as I see it). >=20 > -- > Tomas Restrepo > to...@mv... |
From: <WEC...@th...> - 2002-11-23 17:23:53
|
Tomas: (re: NantContrib:) >I'm not sure if it's worh it to keep them separated >anymore. >Any thoughts? While I understood the reasons behind the separation, I have felt for a while that they should be recombined, if not for technical reasons (like versioning) then for end-user clarity: 1) having to understand to distros and how they relate increases the learning (and thus the adoption curve) for new users. 2) managing two tools that work so closely together is going to cause some to shy away due to the increased maintenance. 3) Knowing whether a given task is in NantContrib, or the Core distro is one extra item to document and research 4) The NantContrib project isn't going anywhere. The last one might yet resolve itself, but its possible that it is a matter of marketing -- OSS projects get traffic based on many factors, however many people hear of Nant, only some percentage are going to hear about NAntContrib. My guess is that it will get less traffic until it is mature -- but it might never mature without that traffic. Finally, managing one OSS project is difficult enough, managing two is much harder, managing two that interact is going to be harder still -- and if the maintainers are going to be the same on both projects (an obvious way to reduce the interaction complexity) then why have two in the first place? Just my 0.02 Best, Bill William E. Caputo ThoughtWorks, Inc. |
From: Bernard V. B. <Ber...@te...> - 2002-11-27 09:01:58
|
Hello Tomas, Since you probably know best how the NUnit2 integration works, would you be willing to make these changes? Unless there is a better and easier solution. Best regards, Bernard > -----Original Message----- > From: Tomas Restrepo [mailto:to...@mv...]=20 > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:26 PM > To: nan...@li... > Subject: Re: NUnit 2 support (was: RE: [nant-dev] FAQ: The=20 > next NAnt version) >=20 >=20 > Hi Bernard, >=20 > << > If the fork attributes would be removed and set to true=20 > internally, and > (only) the NAntContrib tests would be run using the command=20 > line runner, > would there be other problems that need to be solved to make=20 > the NUnit2 > task work for real-world usage? > >> >=20 > I think that would work out, yes. [...] |
From: Tomas R. <to...@mv...> - 2002-11-27 11:10:02
|
Bernard, > Since you probably know best how the NUnit2 integration works, would you > be willing to make these changes? > Unless there is a better and easier solution. Sure, I can do that, no prob.... I'll take a stab at it tonight. -- Tomas Restrepo to...@mv...s |
From: Tomas R. <to...@mv...> - 2002-11-22 12:28:02
|
Hi Bernard, << If the fork attributes would be removed and set to true internally, and (only) the NAntContrib tests would be run using the command line runner, would there be other problems that need to be solved to make the NUnit2 task work for real-world usage? >> I think that would work out, yes. But since we are on a related topic: Does anyone think there's still a place for the NantContrib project? I've been thinking about this for a while, and my POV is that with the large NAnt refactoring that was done last time, most of NantContrib's tasks could be rolled into the appropriate NAnt assemblies.... most are fairly mature now, and some tasks in nantcontrib really belong there... I'm not sure if it's worh it to keep them separated anymore. Any thoughts? -- Tomas Restrepo to...@mv... |
From: Ian M. <ianm@ActiveState.com> - 2002-11-22 20:50:14
|
I agree that a lot of those tasks should be rolled into the main NAnt project. I think there is still a place for NAntContrib as a place for user submissions. The idea being that there is a lower barrier of entry to the contrib project and the best - ie useful to most people tasks get moved into the main project over time. Certainly all the framework tasks should move to NAnt. Ian >But since we are on a related topic: Does anyone think there's still a >place for the NantContrib project? I've been thinking about this for a >while, and my POV is that with the large NAnt refactoring that was done last >time, most of NantContrib's tasks could be rolled into the appropriate NAnt >assemblies.... most are fairly mature now, and some tasks in nantcontrib >really belong there... I'm not sure if it's worh it to keep them separated >anymore. > >Any thoughts? >-- >Tomas Restrepo >to...@mv... > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek >Welcome to geek heaven. >http://thinkgeek.com/sf >_______________________________________________ >Nant-developers mailing list >Nan...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers > > > > |
From: Scott H. <sk...@eo...> - 2002-11-23 01:19:09
|
It does seem that NAntCotrib has a place for non-core tasks. Hopefully the original goal to open NAntContrib up for more experimental tasks and other tools. As Gerry has suggested, to which I agree, the NAnt core will most likely stabilize and get very little work done on it till the next major version while NAntContrib will see more tasks, utils and changes between NAnt versions. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian MacLean" <ianm@ActiveState.com> To: "Tomas Restrepo" <to...@mv...> Cc: <nan...@li...> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:49 PM Subject: Re: NUnit 2 support (was: RE: [nant-dev] FAQ: The next NAnt version) > I agree that a lot of those tasks should be rolled into the main NAnt > project. I think there is still a place for NAntContrib as a place for > user submissions. The idea being that there is a lower barrier of entry > to the contrib project and the best - ie useful to most people tasks get > moved into the main project over time. Certainly all the framework tasks > should move to NAnt. |