Ok, that's reasonable. I didn't know we had any sort of relationship
with the Clover people other than using it under the open-source
license. I do think Clover is a good product as well...
Rod Johnson wrote:
>Colin
>
>The Clover guys have been _very_ helpful to us and I think it's a good
>product. I don't think we should switch to another product just because it's
>open source and Clover is commercial. We're using it with their blessing for
>the entire dev team.
>
>Instrumenting code on the fly does sound interesting.
>
>Rgds
>Rod
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Colin Sampaleanu" <col...@ex...>
>To: <spr...@li...>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:52 AM
>Subject: [Springframework-developer] Emma code coverage tool
>
>
>
>
>>I think we're all pretty busy now, so now's not a great time, but we
>>should maybe examine at some point the idea of switching to Emma
>> http://emma.sourceforge.net/
>>for test code coverage analysis. It looks pretty decent; not quite on
>>the level of Clover, but no license restrictions, and it actually does
>>some things that Clover doesn't (as far as I can tell) like being able
>>to instrument code on the fly (along with the normal
>>pre-instrumentation) to do analysis without a pre-instrument phase.
>>
>>I'll probably be using this on any future coding I do...
>>
>>Colin
>>
>>
|
