You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> on 2010/12/02 09:49:21 UTC
itest dependencies on base-runtime jar?
I note that many of the itest poms now depend on the base-runtime jar.
I recognize the need to test this jar if we're going to ship it but it
makes development a bit of a pain, i.e. you have to re-build the jar
to include any changes before you re-run the test. I've changed any
tests I'm working on locally back to depend on the base-runtime pom.
Is there a reason all the tests need to depend on the jar?
Regards
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: itest dependencies on base-runtime jar?
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:22 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a lot of FUD here but i don't feel strongly about the whether
> the itests use the base jar or pom so if someone wants to change those
> fine. I do want to continue using the jar though, its clearly much
> simpler for users, i can see that and i know users who have tried it
> agree. So i would like to keep it tested with the compliance tests and
> i would like to keep demonstrating it in the samples.
>
> ...ant
Come on, FUD ??? We have felt the pain, and explained the technical
reasons why there are issues with the jar approach. And it's not one
person perception, it's a parception of a good portion of active
committers. So, please, don't call it FUD.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: itest dependencies on base-runtime jar?
Posted by Raymond Feng <cy...@gmail.com>.
I would like to understand what are the FUDs here.
Speaking for myself, I have explicitly listed all of the issues that I ran into with the base-runtime jar dependency.
Thanks,
Raymond
________________________________________________________________
Raymond Feng
rfeng@apache.org
Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com
Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com
________________________________________________________________
On Dec 10, 2010, at 9:22 AM, ant elder wrote:
> There is a lot of FUD here but i don't feel strongly about the whether
> the itests use the base jar or pom so if someone wants to change those
> fine. I do want to continue using the jar though, its clearly much
> simpler for users, i can see that and i know users who have tried it
> agree. So i would like to keep it tested with the compliance tests and
> i would like to keep demonstrating it in the samples.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Raymond Feng <cy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +100 for the POM!
>> The dependency on base-runtime jar causes not only development time issues
>> (circular OSGi dependencies, missing project references), but also runtime
>> issues (duplicate service declarations).
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Raymond Feng
>> rfeng@apache.org
>> Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org
>> Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com
>> Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
>>
>> On 02/12/2010 08:49, Simon Laws wrote:
>>
>> I note that many of the itest poms now depend on the base-runtime jar.
>>
>> I recognize the need to test this jar if we're going to ship it but it
>>
>> makes development a bit of a pain, i.e. you have to re-build the jar
>>
>> to include any changes before you re-run the test. I've changed any
>>
>> tests I'm working on locally back to depend on the base-runtime pom.
>>
>> Is there a reason all the tests need to depend on the jar?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> +1 for the POM
>>
>> Yours, Mike.
>>
>>
Re: itest dependencies on base-runtime jar?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
There is a lot of FUD here but i don't feel strongly about the whether
the itests use the base jar or pom so if someone wants to change those
fine. I do want to continue using the jar though, its clearly much
simpler for users, i can see that and i know users who have tried it
agree. So i would like to keep it tested with the compliance tests and
i would like to keep demonstrating it in the samples.
...ant
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Raymond Feng <cy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +100 for the POM!
> The dependency on base-runtime jar causes not only development time issues
> (circular OSGi dependencies, missing project references), but also runtime
> issues (duplicate service declarations).
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> ________________________________________________________________
> Raymond Feng
> rfeng@apache.org
> Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com
> Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> On 02/12/2010 08:49, Simon Laws wrote:
>
> I note that many of the itest poms now depend on the base-runtime jar.
>
> I recognize the need to test this jar if we're going to ship it but it
>
> makes development a bit of a pain, i.e. you have to re-build the jar
>
> to include any changes before you re-run the test. I've changed any
>
> tests I'm working on locally back to depend on the base-runtime pom.
>
> Is there a reason all the tests need to depend on the jar?
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
> +1 for the POM
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
>
Re: itest dependencies on base-runtime jar?
Posted by Raymond Feng <cy...@gmail.com>.
+100 for the POM!
The dependency on base-runtime jar causes not only development time issues (circular OSGi dependencies, missing project references), but also runtime issues (duplicate service declarations).
Thanks,
Raymond
________________________________________________________________
Raymond Feng
rfeng@apache.org
Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com
Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com
________________________________________________________________
On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
> On 02/12/2010 08:49, Simon Laws wrote:
>> I note that many of the itest poms now depend on the base-runtime jar.
>> I recognize the need to test this jar if we're going to ship it but it
>> makes development a bit of a pain, i.e. you have to re-build the jar
>> to include any changes before you re-run the test. I've changed any
>> tests I'm working on locally back to depend on the base-runtime pom.
>> Is there a reason all the tests need to depend on the jar?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Simon
>>
> +1 for the POM
>
> Yours, Mike.
Re: itest dependencies on base-runtime jar?
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
On 02/12/2010 08:49, Simon Laws wrote:
> I note that many of the itest poms now depend on the base-runtime jar.
> I recognize the need to test this jar if we're going to ship it but it
> makes development a bit of a pain, i.e. you have to re-build the jar
> to include any changes before you re-run the test. I've changed any
> tests I'm working on locally back to depend on the base-runtime pom.
> Is there a reason all the tests need to depend on the jar?
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
+1 for the POM
Yours, Mike.
Re: itest dependencies on base-runtime jar?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:20 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I note that many of the itest poms now depend on the base-runtime jar.
>> I recognize the need to test this jar if we're going to ship it but it
>> makes development a bit of a pain, i.e. you have to re-build the jar
>> to include any changes before you re-run the test. I've changed any
>> tests I'm working on locally back to depend on the base-runtime pom.
>> Is there a reason all the tests need to depend on the jar?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> I like the consistency of it over the overhead of the extra build step.
>
> ...ant
>
Why would it be inconsistent to use the pom? It should be (assuming
maven did the right thing) the same dependencies.
Simon
---
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: itest dependencies on base-runtime jar?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I note that many of the itest poms now depend on the base-runtime jar.
> I recognize the need to test this jar if we're going to ship it but it
> makes development a bit of a pain, i.e. you have to re-build the jar
> to include any changes before you re-run the test. I've changed any
> tests I'm working on locally back to depend on the base-runtime pom.
> Is there a reason all the tests need to depend on the jar?
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
I like the consistency of it over the overhead of the extra build step.
...ant
Re: itest dependencies on base-runtime jar?
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I note that many of the itest poms now depend on the base-runtime jar.
> I recognize the need to test this jar if we're going to ship it but it
> makes development a bit of a pain, i.e. you have to re-build the jar
> to include any changes before you re-run the test. I've changed any
> tests I'm working on locally back to depend on the base-runtime pom.
> Is there a reason all the tests need to depend on the jar?
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
+1 to use the pom
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/