easymock

[Kent Tong <ke...@cpttm.org.mo>]

> Oops! Now I know what Kent was talking about in regard to easymock...We're 
> upgraded now!

Do we really want to upgrade? As Hivemind 1.1 is using easymock 1.1, I think
we should stick to 1.1. What do you think?

--
Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org

Re: easymock

[Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>]

Yeah there is no problem with our jar definitions.

The only incompatible change is elimination of setReturnValue. This is
mostly a "good thing" though, as you get to pretty much eliminate having to
know about MockControl objects altogether. Everything is overall much much
better.

On 6/18/06, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> Did you have to do anything to upgrade?  Is there an incompatible API
> change?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:jkuhnert@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:57 AM
> To: Tapestry development
> Subject: Re: easymock
>
> Ah sorry about that Kent. I felt badly enough about my goof and any
> trouble
> that you might have run into that I went through the pain of upgrading
> everything already.  :(
>
> I should probably have been more vocal about what I was doing, didn't know
> other cooks were coming into the kitchen. Not sure how everyone else
> feels,
> but can't imagine hivemind has ~more~ unit tests than tapestry - so maybe
> they would like to upgrade as well ? ;) (theoretically we should be
> independent in that regard besides the HivemindTestCase cross-over ? )
>
> As long as we're on the subject, I should warn everyone that I also
> plan/would like to change our unit tests to use TestNG as well. It's the
> only reason I went through all those months of interaction to make sure it
> was in maven2 to begin with. This of course doesn't need to happen ~right~
> now, but it should hopefully be something done relatively soon as we
> finish
> our migration to maven2. (just thought I would throw that out in case
> people
> thought it was a more casual choice )
>
> Of course I am not the only developer here, so people should feel free to
> speak up if there are any concerns. I'm not as good at being delicate with
> words so hopefully any bluntness on my part won't be perceived too badly..
>
> On 6/17/06, Kent Tong <ke...@cpttm.org.mo> wrote:
> >
> > Kent Tong <kent <at> cpttm.org.mo> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > > Oops! Now I know what Kent was talking about in regard to
> > easymock...We're
> > > > upgraded now!
> > >
> > > Do we really want to upgrade? As Hivemind 1.1 is using easymock 1.1, I
> > think
> > > we should stick to 1.1. What do you think?
> >
> > BTW, last night I just finished making maven2 build all the modules in
> > tapestry 4.1 properly and all tests pass (still with easymock 1.1). Now
> > all the code uses easymock 2.2. It's OK, but I'd like to know which
> > version to use.
> >
> > --
> > Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT
> )
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
>
> Open source based consulting work centered around
> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.

Re: easymock

[Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>]

I'm all in favor of moving towards TestNG and EasyMock 2.0.  That's what I
use for all my non-Tapestry-4 work.

On 6/18/06, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> If HiveMindTestCase doesn't need to change to compile, then everything
> should be okay.  We're marking the easymock jar as optional in our
> pom.  So,
> if you provide another one that's newer and HiveMindTestCase still works,
> it
> should be good to go.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Carman [mailto:james@carmanconsulting.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 9:33 AM
> To: 'Tapestry development'
> Subject: RE: easymock
>
> Did you have to do anything to upgrade?  Is there an incompatible API
> change?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:jkuhnert@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:57 AM
> To: Tapestry development
> Subject: Re: easymock
>
> Ah sorry about that Kent. I felt badly enough about my goof and any
> trouble
> that you might have run into that I went through the pain of upgrading
> everything already.  :(
>
> I should probably have been more vocal about what I was doing, didn't know
> other cooks were coming into the kitchen. Not sure how everyone else
> feels,
> but can't imagine hivemind has ~more~ unit tests than tapestry - so maybe
> they would like to upgrade as well ? ;) (theoretically we should be
> independent in that regard besides the HivemindTestCase cross-over ? )
>
> As long as we're on the subject, I should warn everyone that I also
> plan/would like to change our unit tests to use TestNG as well. It's the
> only reason I went through all those months of interaction to make sure it
> was in maven2 to begin with. This of course doesn't need to happen ~right~
> now, but it should hopefully be something done relatively soon as we
> finish
> our migration to maven2. (just thought I would throw that out in case
> people
> thought it was a more casual choice )
>
> Of course I am not the only developer here, so people should feel free to
> speak up if there are any concerns. I'm not as good at being delicate with
> words so hopefully any bluntness on my part won't be perceived too badly..
>
> On 6/17/06, Kent Tong <ke...@cpttm.org.mo> wrote:
> >
> > Kent Tong <kent <at> cpttm.org.mo> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > > Oops! Now I know what Kent was talking about in regard to
> > easymock...We're
> > > > upgraded now!
> > >
> > > Do we really want to upgrade? As Hivemind 1.1 is using easymock 1.1, I
> > think
> > > we should stick to 1.1. What do you think?
> >
> > BTW, last night I just finished making maven2 build all the modules in
> > tapestry 4.1 properly and all tests pass (still with easymock 1.1). Now
> > all the code uses easymock 2.2. It's OK, but I'd like to know which
> > version to use.
> >
> > --
> > Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT
> )
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
>
> Open source based consulting work centered around
> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind

Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work.  http://howardlewisship.com

RE: easymock

[James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>]

If HiveMindTestCase doesn't need to change to compile, then everything
should be okay.  We're marking the easymock jar as optional in our pom.  So,
if you provide another one that's newer and HiveMindTestCase still works, it
should be good to go.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Carman [mailto:james@carmanconsulting.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 9:33 AM
To: 'Tapestry development'
Subject: RE: easymock

Did you have to do anything to upgrade?  Is there an incompatible API
change?


-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:jkuhnert@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:57 AM
To: Tapestry development
Subject: Re: easymock

Ah sorry about that Kent. I felt badly enough about my goof and any trouble
that you might have run into that I went through the pain of upgrading
everything already.  :(

I should probably have been more vocal about what I was doing, didn't know
other cooks were coming into the kitchen. Not sure how everyone else feels,
but can't imagine hivemind has ~more~ unit tests than tapestry - so maybe
they would like to upgrade as well ? ;) (theoretically we should be
independent in that regard besides the HivemindTestCase cross-over ? )

As long as we're on the subject, I should warn everyone that I also
plan/would like to change our unit tests to use TestNG as well. It's the
only reason I went through all those months of interaction to make sure it
was in maven2 to begin with. This of course doesn't need to happen ~right~
now, but it should hopefully be something done relatively soon as we finish
our migration to maven2. (just thought I would throw that out in case people
thought it was a more casual choice )

Of course I am not the only developer here, so people should feel free to
speak up if there are any concerns. I'm not as good at being delicate with
words so hopefully any bluntness on my part won't be perceived too badly..

On 6/17/06, Kent Tong <ke...@cpttm.org.mo> wrote:
>
> Kent Tong <kent <at> cpttm.org.mo> writes:
>
> >
> > > Oops! Now I know what Kent was talking about in regard to
> easymock...We're
> > > upgraded now!
> >
> > Do we really want to upgrade? As Hivemind 1.1 is using easymock 1.1, I
> think
> > we should stick to 1.1. What do you think?
>
> BTW, last night I just finished making maven2 build all the modules in
> tapestry 4.1 properly and all tests pass (still with easymock 1.1). Now
> all the code uses easymock 2.2. It's OK, but I'd like to know which
> version to use.
>
> --
> Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org

RE: easymock

[James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>]

Did you have to do anything to upgrade?  Is there an incompatible API
change?


-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:jkuhnert@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:57 AM
To: Tapestry development
Subject: Re: easymock

Ah sorry about that Kent. I felt badly enough about my goof and any trouble
that you might have run into that I went through the pain of upgrading
everything already.  :(

I should probably have been more vocal about what I was doing, didn't know
other cooks were coming into the kitchen. Not sure how everyone else feels,
but can't imagine hivemind has ~more~ unit tests than tapestry - so maybe
they would like to upgrade as well ? ;) (theoretically we should be
independent in that regard besides the HivemindTestCase cross-over ? )

As long as we're on the subject, I should warn everyone that I also
plan/would like to change our unit tests to use TestNG as well. It's the
only reason I went through all those months of interaction to make sure it
was in maven2 to begin with. This of course doesn't need to happen ~right~
now, but it should hopefully be something done relatively soon as we finish
our migration to maven2. (just thought I would throw that out in case people
thought it was a more casual choice )

Of course I am not the only developer here, so people should feel free to
speak up if there are any concerns. I'm not as good at being delicate with
words so hopefully any bluntness on my part won't be perceived too badly..

On 6/17/06, Kent Tong <ke...@cpttm.org.mo> wrote:
>
> Kent Tong <kent <at> cpttm.org.mo> writes:
>
> >
> > > Oops! Now I know what Kent was talking about in regard to
> easymock...We're
> > > upgraded now!
> >
> > Do we really want to upgrade? As Hivemind 1.1 is using easymock 1.1, I
> think
> > we should stick to 1.1. What do you think?
>
> BTW, last night I just finished making maven2 build all the modules in
> tapestry 4.1 properly and all tests pass (still with easymock 1.1). Now
> all the code uses easymock 2.2. It's OK, but I'd like to know which
> version to use.
>
> --
> Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org

Re: easymock

[Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>]

To support Jesse here, I'm also a TestNG believer. It contains a huge number
of features, well beyong Junit, and it's well though out and has reasonable
IDE plugins.  It also supports JDK 1.4 if you like, via an xdoclet kind of
approach.

On 6/23/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think to me the question is more what is the benefit of Junit over
> TestNG?
> I've been creating annotation/configuration driven tests for a very long
> time now with TestNG. Junit4 is going to have to do a lot better than
> copying one (and not even a full copy!) feature to win me over.
>
> They also aren't supported in maven2 as far as I know...Plus I kind of
> like
> the testng engineers now :) Who knows, maybe the agility(snicker) of the
> junit engineers will surprise us all in the next few months but I doubt
> it..
>
> On 6/23/06, Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/17/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As long as we're on the subject, I should warn everyone that I also
> > > plan/would like to change our unit tests to use TestNG as well. It's
> the
> >
> > Just asking - regarding Tap, what's the benefit of TestNG over Junit 4.x
> ?
> >
> > Kalle
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
>
> Open source based consulting work centered around
> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
>
>


-- 
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind

Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work.  http://howardlewisship.com

Re: easymock

[Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>]

I think to me the question is more what is the benefit of Junit over TestNG?
I've been creating annotation/configuration driven tests for a very long
time now with TestNG. Junit4 is going to have to do a lot better than
copying one (and not even a full copy!) feature to win me over.

They also aren't supported in maven2 as far as I know...Plus I kind of like
the testng engineers now :) Who knows, maybe the agility(snicker) of the
junit engineers will surprise us all in the next few months but I doubt it..

On 6/23/06, Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As long as we're on the subject, I should warn everyone that I also
> > plan/would like to change our unit tests to use TestNG as well. It's the
>
> Just asking - regarding Tap, what's the benefit of TestNG over Junit 4.x?
>
> Kalle
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.

Re: easymock

[Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>]

On 6/17/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As long as we're on the subject, I should warn everyone that I also
> plan/would like to change our unit tests to use TestNG as well. It's the

Just asking - regarding Tap, what's the benefit of TestNG over Junit 4.x?

Kalle

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org

Re: easymock

[Kent Tong <ke...@cpttm.org.mo>]

Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert <at> gmail.com> writes:

> I should probably have been more vocal about what I was doing, didn't know
> other cooks were coming into the kitchen. Not sure how everyone else feels,
> but can't imagine hivemind has ~more~ unit tests than tapestry - so maybe
> they would like to upgrade as well ? ;) (theoretically we should be
> independent in that regard besides the HivemindTestCase cross-over ? )

Well, I think in a classloader we can't have two versions of the same
lib. Either Tapestry or Hivemind will be confused.

> As long as we're on the subject, I should warn everyone that I also
> plan/would like to change our unit tests to use TestNG as well. 

Thanks for the prior warning :-)

--
Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org

Re: easymock

[Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>]

Ah sorry about that Kent. I felt badly enough about my goof and any trouble
that you might have run into that I went through the pain of upgrading
everything already.  :(

I should probably have been more vocal about what I was doing, didn't know
other cooks were coming into the kitchen. Not sure how everyone else feels,
but can't imagine hivemind has ~more~ unit tests than tapestry - so maybe
they would like to upgrade as well ? ;) (theoretically we should be
independent in that regard besides the HivemindTestCase cross-over ? )

As long as we're on the subject, I should warn everyone that I also
plan/would like to change our unit tests to use TestNG as well. It's the
only reason I went through all those months of interaction to make sure it
was in maven2 to begin with. This of course doesn't need to happen ~right~
now, but it should hopefully be something done relatively soon as we finish
our migration to maven2. (just thought I would throw that out in case people
thought it was a more casual choice )

Of course I am not the only developer here, so people should feel free to
speak up if there are any concerns. I'm not as good at being delicate with
words so hopefully any bluntness on my part won't be perceived too badly..

On 6/17/06, Kent Tong <ke...@cpttm.org.mo> wrote:
>
> Kent Tong <kent <at> cpttm.org.mo> writes:
>
> >
> > > Oops! Now I know what Kent was talking about in regard to
> easymock...We're
> > > upgraded now!
> >
> > Do we really want to upgrade? As Hivemind 1.1 is using easymock 1.1, I
> think
> > we should stick to 1.1. What do you think?
>
> BTW, last night I just finished making maven2 build all the modules in
> tapestry 4.1 properly and all tests pass (still with easymock 1.1). Now
> all the code uses easymock 2.2. It's OK, but I'd like to know which
> version to use.
>
> --
> Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.

Re: easymock

[Kent Tong <ke...@cpttm.org.mo>]

Kent Tong <kent <at> cpttm.org.mo> writes:

> 
> > Oops! Now I know what Kent was talking about in regard to easymock...We're 
> > upgraded now!
> 
> Do we really want to upgrade? As Hivemind 1.1 is using easymock 1.1, I think
> we should stick to 1.1. What do you think?

BTW, last night I just finished making maven2 build all the modules in 
tapestry 4.1 properly and all tests pass (still with easymock 1.1). Now
all the code uses easymock 2.2. It's OK, but I'd like to know which
version to use.

--
Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org