You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> on 2006/04/20 03:08:00 UTC
New Celtix binding in the sandbox
I committed the patches from Dan Kulp for a Celtix binding into the
sandbox. They look good to me and both built out of the box. Please can
others have a look and see if/when these should be moved into the main tree.
Dan has been very patient with our recent refactorings breaking his code
so I would ask everyone (Jim!) if they could include these modules into
their IDEs when changing stuff even though they are still in the sandbox.
--
Jeremy
Re: New Celtix binding in the sandbox
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
On Apr 20, 2006, at 4:31 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
>
>> I think this is a really good start but before they get moved up I'd
>> like to see some unit test coverage.
>>
>
> Agreed. Normally, I wouldn't have even submitted a patch without
> some
> tests in place. That really bothers me. But I was also getting
> frustrated with the breakages so decided it would be a good thing
> to get
> in so you can refactor it as you do you work. This way, I can
>
Yea for the sandbox that is absolutely fine. Also, it's pretty easy
for me to do the refactorings (I probably should have suggested we do
this, as it would have saved you the frustration). I guess I owe you
a few beers :-) Are you out in the Bay Area for JavaOne?
> concentrate on creating tests, adding features (doc/lit and rpc/lit
> support are next), etc... without having to spend time each day
> trying to
> figure out why it's not compiling. :-)
>
> Related to unit testing:
> Do you guy use any sort of mock object framework for testing? For
> Celtix, we use easymock:
> http://www.easymock.org/
> I don't want to start using it if you already started using something
> else. It's already in maven/ibiblio so it's easy to use with maven.
>
We haven't chosen one yet. I'd be open to using Easy Mock. What do
others think? Should we adopt it?
> Thanks!
> Dan
>
>
>
>> I also think this is going to
>> raise some interesting integration test issues. For example, I'd like
>> to set up integration tests with Celtix and the Java container (maybe
>> Javascript but I'm not sure if that is feasible in the short-term if
>> there is a need to do data-transformation). What do people think is
>> the best strategy for testing projects that do not have dependencies
>> on one another (e.g. Celtix and Java)? This may tie into the
>> continuum discussions.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Apr 19, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>> I committed the patches from Dan Kulp for a Celtix binding into the
>>> sandbox. They look good to me and both built out of the box. Please
>>> can
>>> others have a look and see if/when these should be moved into the
>>> main tree.
>>>
>>> Dan has been very patient with our recent refactorings breaking his
>>> code
>>> so I would ask everyone (Jim!) if they could include these modules
>>> into
>>> their IDEs when changing stuff even though they are still in the
>>> sandbox.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> IONA
> P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> daniel.kulp@iona.com
>
Re: New Celtix binding in the sandbox
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
Jim,
> I think this is a really good start but before they get moved up I'd
> like to see some unit test coverage.
Agreed. Normally, I wouldn't have even submitted a patch without some
tests in place. That really bothers me. But I was also getting
frustrated with the breakages so decided it would be a good thing to get
in so you can refactor it as you do you work. This way, I can
concentrate on creating tests, adding features (doc/lit and rpc/lit
support are next), etc... without having to spend time each day trying to
figure out why it's not compiling. :-)
Related to unit testing:
Do you guy use any sort of mock object framework for testing? For
Celtix, we use easymock:
http://www.easymock.org/
I don't want to start using it if you already started using something
else. It's already in maven/ibiblio so it's easy to use with maven.
Thanks!
Dan
> I also think this is going to
> raise some interesting integration test issues. For example, I'd like
> to set up integration tests with Celtix and the Java container (maybe
> Javascript but I'm not sure if that is feasible in the short-term if
> there is a need to do data-transformation). What do people think is
> the best strategy for testing projects that do not have dependencies
> on one another (e.g. Celtix and Java)? This may tie into the
> continuum discussions.
>
> Jim
>
> On Apr 19, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> > I committed the patches from Dan Kulp for a Celtix binding into the
> > sandbox. They look good to me and both built out of the box. Please
> > can
> > others have a look and see if/when these should be moved into the
> > main tree.
> >
> > Dan has been very patient with our recent refactorings breaking his
> > code
> > so I would ask everyone (Jim!) if they could include these modules
> > into
> > their IDEs when changing stuff even though they are still in the
> > sandbox.
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
Re: New Celtix binding in the sandbox
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
Thanks Dan for doing this and having patience with all of the
refactorings. I'll include this in my refactorings moving forward so
the code doesn't break.
I think this is a really good start but before they get moved up I'd
like to see some unit test coverage. I also think this is going to
raise some interesting integration test issues. For example, I'd like
to set up integration tests with Celtix and the Java container (maybe
Javascript but I'm not sure if that is feasible in the short-term if
there is a need to do data-transformation). What do people think is
the best strategy for testing projects that do not have dependencies
on one another (e.g. Celtix and Java)? This may tie into the
continuum discussions.
Jim
On Apr 19, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> I committed the patches from Dan Kulp for a Celtix binding into the
> sandbox. They look good to me and both built out of the box. Please
> can
> others have a look and see if/when these should be moved into the
> main tree.
>
> Dan has been very patient with our recent refactorings breaking his
> code
> so I would ask everyone (Jim!) if they could include these modules
> into
> their IDEs when changing stuff even though they are still in the
> sandbox.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
Re: New Celtix binding in the sandbox
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
Thanks a bunch Jeremy!
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 21:08, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> I committed the patches from Dan Kulp for a Celtix binding into the
> sandbox. They look good to me and both built out of the box. Please can
> others have a look and see if/when these should be moved into the main
> tree.
>
> Dan has been very patient with our recent refactorings breaking his
> code so I would ask everyone (Jim!) if they could include these modules
> into their IDEs when changing stuff even though they are still in the
> sandbox.
>
> --
> Jeremy
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com