You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cactus-dev@jakarta.apache.org by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com> on 2003/12/24 12:21:55 UTC
[Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
Hi cactus committers,
As every day goes by, I am more and more excited about Cactus v2 (see
http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/vmassol/archives/000520_cactus_v2_archi
tecture_proposal.html). I'd like to start pumping some cactus v2 code.
Before going on, I'd like to know what you think about Cactus v2 and to
decide on how we progress. I believe we have several options:
1/ create a jakarta-cactus/sandbox/cactus2 directory and write cactus v2
code in there
2/ request the creation of a jakarta-cactus2 CVS module (It will still
be under the umbrella of the Cactus project - it's not the creation of a
new project).
I personally much prefer solution 2/ as it is cleaner (and it works
better with Eclipse projects too).
We have also the option to request the creation of a
cactus2-dev@jakarta.apache.org mailing list. If not, then all traffic
will go to the existing cactus-dev ML. I also prefer to request the
creation of such a list.
I'm also curious to know how many of you are interested in participating
to Cactus 2 (or is it too early at this stage for you to know)? I've
been talking to Jonas Boner (AspectWerkz author) and Chad Woolley
(VirtualMock author) and I'd like to invite them to participate to the
Cactus2 project if they're interested (it will be easier to do if we
have separate jakarta-cactus2 CVS module I think).
Anyway, I'm interested in any feedback you have!
Please provide feedback on the proposed Cactus2 architecture. I'd like
to put this doc in the new cactus2 CVS location so that everyone can
help and it'll be easier to follow changes to it.
Thanks
-Vincent
Wanna see JUnit in Action?
(http://manning.com/massol)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
Posted by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:cmlenz@gmx.de]
> Sent: 27 December 2003 13:47
> To: Cactus Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
>
> Hi Vincent!
>
> Am 24.12.2003 um 12:21 schrieb Vincent Massol:
> > Hi cactus committers,
> >
> > As every day goes by, I am more and more excited about Cactus v2
(see
> > http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/vmassol/archives/
> > 000520_cactus_v2_archi
> > tecture_proposal.html). I'd like to start pumping some cactus v2
code.
> >
> > Before going on, I'd like to know what you think about Cactus v2 and
to
> > decide on how we progress. I believe we have several options:
> >
> > 1/ create a jakarta-cactus/sandbox/cactus2 directory and write
cactus
> > v2
> > code in there
> > 2/ request the creation of a jakarta-cactus2 CVS module (It will
still
> > be under the umbrella of the Cactus project - it's not the creation
of
> > a
> > new project).
> >
> > I personally much prefer solution 2/ as it is cleaner (and it works
> > better with Eclipse projects too).
>
> I don't see the advantage of a separate CVS module at this stage. I'd
> much prefer the code being bootstrapped in a scratchpad area of our
> current CVS module. When the code is working and we (the Cactus
> community) agree that the proposed architecture is the way to go for
> V2, a fresh CVS module would be nice.
>
> -1 to a jakarta-cactus2 CVS module at this point in time.
> +1 to jakarta-cactus/scratchpad/cactus2
ok done
(http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-cactus/scratchpad/cactus2/)
>
> When the new code is ready to be promoted out of the scratchpad, we
> might also want to consider starting the new repository in SVN.
> <http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/?root=Apache-SVN>
good idea. I'd love to try SVN...
>
> > We have also the option to request the creation of a
> > cactus2-dev@jakarta.apache.org mailing list. If not, then all
traffic
> > will go to the existing cactus-dev ML. I also prefer to request the
> > creation of such a list.
>
> Strong -1 against a new mailing list. Really, our current dev list is
> rather low-traffic, we can definitely handle any extra traffic caused
> by the new aspect-based cactus. On the negative side, a new mailing
> list effectively splits the community, and may raise oversight
> concerns.
>
> Just keep everything on this mailing-list, I'm sure everyone is
> interested (I am, at least) :-)
cool. I hope that we'll get some feedback now that the architecture and
code are open to everyone!
Please have architecture discussions on the list and/or on wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-cactus/Cactus2Proposal
>
> > I'm also curious to know how many of you are interested in
> > participating
> > to Cactus 2 (or is it too early at this stage for you to know)? I've
> > been talking to Jonas Boner (AspectWerkz author) and Chad Woolley
> > (VirtualMock author) and I'd like to invite them to participate to
the
> > Cactus2 project if they're interested (it will be easier to do if we
> > have separate jakarta-cactus2 CVS module I think).
> >
> > Anyway, I'm interested in any feedback you have!
> >
> > Please provide feedback on the proposed Cactus2 architecture. I'd
like
> > to put this doc in the new cactus2 CVS location so that everyone can
> > help and it'll be easier to follow changes to it.
>
> I'm very interested, but not sure I can be of much help. Besides time
> constraints, I'm also (still!) new to aspect-oriented programming. The
> document you wrote up definitely sounds cool, though.
>
> For documentation, I'd suggest we start in the Wiki (wiki.apache.org,
> the new, moin-moin based one). A Wiki is probably a better fit for
> documenting ideas that are still in a rather early stage.
Done: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-cactus/Cactus2Proposal
Thanks
-Vincent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
Posted by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:cmlenz@gmx.de]
> Sent: 27 December 2003 13:47
> To: Cactus Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
>
> Hi Vincent!
>
> Am 24.12.2003 um 12:21 schrieb Vincent Massol:
> > Hi cactus committers,
> >
> > As every day goes by, I am more and more excited about Cactus v2
(see
> > http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/vmassol/archives/
> > 000520_cactus_v2_archi
> > tecture_proposal.html). I'd like to start pumping some cactus v2
code.
> >
> > Before going on, I'd like to know what you think about Cactus v2 and
to
> > decide on how we progress. I believe we have several options:
> >
> > 1/ create a jakarta-cactus/sandbox/cactus2 directory and write
cactus
> > v2
> > code in there
> > 2/ request the creation of a jakarta-cactus2 CVS module (It will
still
> > be under the umbrella of the Cactus project - it's not the creation
of
> > a
> > new project).
> >
> > I personally much prefer solution 2/ as it is cleaner (and it works
> > better with Eclipse projects too).
>
> I don't see the advantage of a separate CVS module at this stage. I'd
> much prefer the code being bootstrapped in a scratchpad area of our
> current CVS module. When the code is working and we (the Cactus
> community) agree that the proposed architecture is the way to go for
> V2, a fresh CVS module would be nice.
>
> -1 to a jakarta-cactus2 CVS module at this point in time.
> +1 to jakarta-cactus/scratchpad/cactus2
Seen how long it takes to get a wiki page, I believe it would take too
long to ask for the creation a jakarta-cactus2 module. In the future, we
have to remember to ask for it a few months before we need it... ;-)
I'm currently working on the build part of jakarta-cactus2 which is not
yet working (will be soon now). I'm using Maven for the build. In the
process I've created an AspectWerkz plugin for Maven. In term of code
there isn't much: only the Test sample that I've put in the cactus2
proposal. I'm now trying to make it work through the build.
>
> When the new code is ready to be promoted out of the scratchpad, we
> might also want to consider starting the new repository in SVN.
> <http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/?root=Apache-SVN>
I'm fine with trying new things.
>
> > We have also the option to request the creation of a
> > cactus2-dev@jakarta.apache.org mailing list. If not, then all
traffic
> > will go to the existing cactus-dev ML. I also prefer to request the
> > creation of such a list.
>
> Strong -1 against a new mailing list. Really, our current dev list is
> rather low-traffic, we can definitely handle any extra traffic caused
> by the new aspect-based cactus. On the negative side, a new mailing
> list effectively splits the community, and may raise oversight
> concerns.
ok
>
> Just keep everything on this mailing-list, I'm sure everyone is
> interested (I am, at least) :-)
ok
>
> > I'm also curious to know how many of you are interested in
> > participating
> > to Cactus 2 (or is it too early at this stage for you to know)? I've
> > been talking to Jonas Boner (AspectWerkz author) and Chad Woolley
> > (VirtualMock author) and I'd like to invite them to participate to
the
> > Cactus2 project if they're interested (it will be easier to do if we
> > have separate jakarta-cactus2 CVS module I think).
> >
> > Anyway, I'm interested in any feedback you have!
> >
> > Please provide feedback on the proposed Cactus2 architecture. I'd
like
> > to put this doc in the new cactus2 CVS location so that everyone can
> > help and it'll be easier to follow changes to it.
>
> I'm very interested, but not sure I can be of much help. Besides time
> constraints, I'm also (still!) new to aspect-oriented programming. The
> document you wrote up definitely sounds cool, though.
>
> For documentation, I'd suggest we start in the Wiki (wiki.apache.org,
> the new, moin-moin based one). A Wiki is probably a better fit for
> documenting ideas that are still in a rather early stage.
Yep. I've started the ball rolling... We'll get it Real Soon Now... :-)
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
> --
> Christopher Lenz
> /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
Posted by Christopher Lenz <cm...@gmx.de>.
Hi Vincent!
Am 24.12.2003 um 12:21 schrieb Vincent Massol:
> Hi cactus committers,
>
> As every day goes by, I am more and more excited about Cactus v2 (see
> http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/vmassol/archives/
> 000520_cactus_v2_archi
> tecture_proposal.html). I'd like to start pumping some cactus v2 code.
>
> Before going on, I'd like to know what you think about Cactus v2 and to
> decide on how we progress. I believe we have several options:
>
> 1/ create a jakarta-cactus/sandbox/cactus2 directory and write cactus
> v2
> code in there
> 2/ request the creation of a jakarta-cactus2 CVS module (It will still
> be under the umbrella of the Cactus project - it's not the creation of
> a
> new project).
>
> I personally much prefer solution 2/ as it is cleaner (and it works
> better with Eclipse projects too).
I don't see the advantage of a separate CVS module at this stage. I'd
much prefer the code being bootstrapped in a scratchpad area of our
current CVS module. When the code is working and we (the Cactus
community) agree that the proposed architecture is the way to go for
V2, a fresh CVS module would be nice.
-1 to a jakarta-cactus2 CVS module at this point in time.
+1 to jakarta-cactus/scratchpad/cactus2
When the new code is ready to be promoted out of the scratchpad, we
might also want to consider starting the new repository in SVN.
<http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/?root=Apache-SVN>
> We have also the option to request the creation of a
> cactus2-dev@jakarta.apache.org mailing list. If not, then all traffic
> will go to the existing cactus-dev ML. I also prefer to request the
> creation of such a list.
Strong -1 against a new mailing list. Really, our current dev list is
rather low-traffic, we can definitely handle any extra traffic caused
by the new aspect-based cactus. On the negative side, a new mailing
list effectively splits the community, and may raise oversight
concerns.
Just keep everything on this mailing-list, I'm sure everyone is
interested (I am, at least) :-)
> I'm also curious to know how many of you are interested in
> participating
> to Cactus 2 (or is it too early at this stage for you to know)? I've
> been talking to Jonas Boner (AspectWerkz author) and Chad Woolley
> (VirtualMock author) and I'd like to invite them to participate to the
> Cactus2 project if they're interested (it will be easier to do if we
> have separate jakarta-cactus2 CVS module I think).
>
> Anyway, I'm interested in any feedback you have!
>
> Please provide feedback on the proposed Cactus2 architecture. I'd like
> to put this doc in the new cactus2 CVS location so that everyone can
> help and it'll be easier to follow changes to it.
I'm very interested, but not sure I can be of much help. Besides time
constraints, I'm also (still!) new to aspect-oriented programming. The
document you wrote up definitely sounds cool, though.
For documentation, I'd suggest we start in the Wiki (wiki.apache.org,
the new, moin-moin based one). A Wiki is probably a better fit for
documenting ideas that are still in a rather early stage.
Cheers,
Chris
--
Christopher Lenz
/=/ cmlenz at gmx.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
Posted by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com>.
Hi Nick,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Lesiecki [mailto:ndlesiecki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 31 December 2003 06:36
> To: Cactus Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
>
> Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your excellent proposal
Vincent,
> the holidays have been very busy for me.
>
> On 12/24/03 4:21 AM, "Vincent Massol" <vm...@pivolis.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi cactus committers,
> >
> > As every day goes by, I am more and more excited about Cactus v2
(see
> >
http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/vmassol/archives/000520_cactus_v2_archi
> > tecture_proposal.html). I'd like to start pumping some cactus v2
code.
> >
> > Before going on, I'd like to know what you think about Cactus v2 and
to
> > decide on how we progress. I believe we have several options:
> >
> > 1/ create a jakarta-cactus/sandbox/cactus2 directory and write
cactus v2
> > code in there
> > 2/ request the creation of a jakarta-cactus2 CVS module (It will
still
> > be under the umbrella of the Cactus project - it's not the creation
of a
> > new project).
>
> I think I prefer solution 2 as well--if only because it would be nice
to
> work in a clean area without all of the Cactus1 baggage.
I agree but Chris doesnt and as I'm interested in making progress than
in the form, I'll commit something in jakarta-cactus/scratchpad/cactus2
as soon as I have something decent to show (say in 1-2 week's time).
> >
> > I personally much prefer solution 2/ as it is cleaner (and it works
> > better with Eclipse projects too).
> >
> > We have also the option to request the creation of a
> > cactus2-dev@jakarta.apache.org mailing list. If not, then all
traffic
> > will go to the existing cactus-dev ML. I also prefer to request the
> > creation of such a list.
>
> Nah, let's keep the discussion here as Chris suggests.
ok
> >
> > I'm also curious to know how many of you are interested in
participating
> > to Cactus 2 (or is it too early at this stage for you to know)? I've
> > been talking to Jonas Boner (AspectWerkz author) and Chad Woolley
> > (VirtualMock author) and I'd like to invite them to participate to
the
> > Cactus2 project if they're interested (it will be easier to do if we
> > have separate jakarta-cactus2 CVS module I think).
>
> More interested than I am in participating in Cactus1--if only because
> there's more work/more fundamental work to do on Cactus2. However, my
> limiting factor (as always) is time. I find it extremely hard to scare
up
> the 6 hours it takes to get some momentum behind Cactus development.
> (Perhaps a minor goal for Cactus2 could be a lighter-weight build
> process?)
I'd like to use Maven and I believe the build will *much* lighter as a
consequence.
> Still, there's always room for someone to write docs and provide
> thought...
yep
> I've been talking to VMS (my company) about donating some time to the
> Cactus
> project, perhaps that will help.
Cool! Congrats for your new job at VMS! :-)
>
> On the subject of new team members. I think Chad would be an excellent
> addition to the Cactus team. He has intelligence, a passion for the
> subject,
> and way more time than I do :) I recommend him highly.
>
> If Chad should join VMS (a subject currently under discussion), we
could
> actually have a live pair on the Cactus project. That would be cool.
Hey, very cool!
>
> As for Jonas, his creation of AW is credentials enough for me. If he
does
> join, we are likely to get AW tailored to our needs which is great.
>
>
> >
> > Anyway, I'm interested in any feedback you have!
>
> As for the proposal itself, I have 3 areas of feedback.
>
> 1) AW vs. AJ
>
> I think I prefer the stability and maturity of AspectJ, but I
understand
> that it requires more tool support.
>
> One question I have, how well do AspectJ and AspectWerkz play
together?
I dont know. Haven't tried.
> Personally, I am planning on integrating AspectJ into our production
> system
> in the near future. I would hate to be shut out of Cactus2 because of
that
> decision.
I agree that whatever internal fwk we use must be as transparent as
possible for Cactus end users.
> (I'm not convinced that AspectWerkz is mature enough to use in
> production.) I would actually cite AspectJ's tool support (crosscut
> browsing, for instance) as a bonus for users committed to the idea of
AOP.
> The only users I would worry about would be those who did not wish to
do
> AOP
> except for Cactus.
Yes and there are a lot (about 99.99999% for the moment :-)).
>
> We could consider a dual implementation approach (AspectWerkz and
AspectJ)
> as Chad Wooley did for EasyMock. This could be a lot of trouble, but
might
> be manageable if we delegate a lot of the actual code to POJO's.
I'd like to start by doing simple things first. The first goal I have in
mind is to see if we can expose the AW API directly to the test case
writer. If it's too complex, there are 2 possibilities:
- convince the AW team to improve AW to make it more user-friendly
- provide some helper aspects/classes for Cactus end users
I'd rather not hide the underlying aspect fwk with a completely new API.
I can see drawbacks with this approach:
- you dont get the full power of the aspect fwk (least common
denominator)
- you don't benefit from any new feature (you'll need to explicitely add
support for it)
- a new "language" to learn for end users (there's a better probability
they'll know about the underlying fwk)
- doc to write
- testing to add
- lots of support to do, whereas by using directly AW for example, if
there's a question related to AW you can redirect the user to the AW
forums/lists/docs/etc.
In any case, I'd like to start simple and see what happens. It may
happen that the outcome is that we absolutely need this façade API. But
I'd like to try without one to start with...
>
> 2) I'm not sure I like the idea of forcing the user to call their
> component
> externally using HTTPUnit or another tool. Most of the time that I use
> Cactus nowadays, I simply need to be in the container. I use
> ServletTestCase
> merely because it is legal to instantiate local EJBs and call their
> methods
> within the container. I believe Chris reported a similar usage
pattern.
> The
> ease of Cactus is in not needing to go through all the trouble of
> stimulating the code as if a client had done it. For testing actual
HTTP
> protocol behavior this idea could be good. However, for testing EJBs I
see
> less purpose.
I dont think using HTTPUnit is radically more complex that using
current Cactus API:
WebConversation conversation = new WebConversation();
WebRequest request = new GetMethodWebRequest(
"http://localhost:8080/test/SampleServlet?param1=value1¶m2=value2");
Versus
WebRequest.addParameter("param1", "value1");
WebRequest.addParameter("param2", "value2");
+
configuration
However, what we could always do is provide a helper class so that you
would write:
WebConnection connection = new WebConnection();
connection.addParameter("param1", "value1");
connection.addParameter("param2", "value2");
connection.connect();
or something similar.
But what I am very convinced about is that this should NOT be hardcoded
into the core Cactus framework. I'm ok to add it to the servlet layer on
top of the core which would provide some easier way to write test cases
for servlets/filters/jsp/etc, but not to the generic code layer.
>
> 3) Obviously, bringing in Aspects opens up whole new realms of unit
> testing
> possibilities.
Yes. It opens up server-side expectations for example, which is very
exciting. For me, this expectation stuff is the reunification of Cactus
+ Pattern Testing (http://patterntesting.sourceforge.net/).
> The question is, what will Cactus contribute on top of
> those?
It'll contribute several things:
- ability to continue a test started on the client side to the server
side
- ability to get test result back to the client side
- end to end test automation through the use of the Cactus front ends
- helper classes/aspects for even easier testing of specific
technologies: for example servlets (and extensions: Filters, Jsp,
Taglibs).
- docs
> Will we have our own mocking framework that uses AOP?
I dont see the need. We can integrate with any existing mocking
framework, be it EasyMock/DynaMock/JMock or VirtualMock.
>
>
> I haven't yet fully thought through this feedback, but I preferred
getting
> it out tonight to polishing my response.
Cool. Keep the questions/feedback/ideas comings! :-)
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> Cheers,
> Nick
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
Posted by Nicholas Lesiecki <nd...@yahoo.com>.
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your excellent proposal Vincent,
the holidays have been very busy for me.
On 12/24/03 4:21 AM, "Vincent Massol" <vm...@pivolis.com> wrote:
> Hi cactus committers,
>
> As every day goes by, I am more and more excited about Cactus v2 (see
> http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/vmassol/archives/000520_cactus_v2_archi
> tecture_proposal.html). I'd like to start pumping some cactus v2 code.
>
> Before going on, I'd like to know what you think about Cactus v2 and to
> decide on how we progress. I believe we have several options:
>
> 1/ create a jakarta-cactus/sandbox/cactus2 directory and write cactus v2
> code in there
> 2/ request the creation of a jakarta-cactus2 CVS module (It will still
> be under the umbrella of the Cactus project - it's not the creation of a
> new project).
I think I prefer solution 2 as well--if only because it would be nice to
work in a clean area without all of the Cactus1 baggage.
>
> I personally much prefer solution 2/ as it is cleaner (and it works
> better with Eclipse projects too).
>
> We have also the option to request the creation of a
> cactus2-dev@jakarta.apache.org mailing list. If not, then all traffic
> will go to the existing cactus-dev ML. I also prefer to request the
> creation of such a list.
Nah, let's keep the discussion here as Chris suggests.
>
> I'm also curious to know how many of you are interested in participating
> to Cactus 2 (or is it too early at this stage for you to know)? I've
> been talking to Jonas Boner (AspectWerkz author) and Chad Woolley
> (VirtualMock author) and I'd like to invite them to participate to the
> Cactus2 project if they're interested (it will be easier to do if we
> have separate jakarta-cactus2 CVS module I think).
More interested than I am in participating in Cactus1--if only because
there's more work/more fundamental work to do on Cactus2. However, my
limiting factor (as always) is time. I find it extremely hard to scare up
the 6 hours it takes to get some momentum behind Cactus development.
(Perhaps a minor goal for Cactus2 could be a lighter-weight build process?)
Still, there's always room for someone to write docs and provide thought...
I've been talking to VMS (my company) about donating some time to the Cactus
project, perhaps that will help.
On the subject of new team members. I think Chad would be an excellent
addition to the Cactus team. He has intelligence, a passion for the subject,
and way more time than I do :) I recommend him highly.
If Chad should join VMS (a subject currently under discussion), we could
actually have a live pair on the Cactus project. That would be cool.
As for Jonas, his creation of AW is credentials enough for me. If he does
join, we are likely to get AW tailored to our needs which is great.
>
> Anyway, I'm interested in any feedback you have!
As for the proposal itself, I have 3 areas of feedback.
1) AW vs. AJ
I think I prefer the stability and maturity of AspectJ, but I understand
that it requires more tool support.
One question I have, how well do AspectJ and AspectWerkz play together?
Personally, I am planning on integrating AspectJ into our production system
in the near future. I would hate to be shut out of Cactus2 because of that
decision. (I'm not convinced that AspectWerkz is mature enough to use in
production.) I would actually cite AspectJ's tool support (crosscut
browsing, for instance) as a bonus for users committed to the idea of AOP.
The only users I would worry about would be those who did not wish to do AOP
except for Cactus.
We could consider a dual implementation approach (AspectWerkz and AspectJ)
as Chad Wooley did for EasyMock. This could be a lot of trouble, but might
be manageable if we delegate a lot of the actual code to POJO's.
2) I'm not sure I like the idea of forcing the user to call their component
externally using HTTPUnit or another tool. Most of the time that I use
Cactus nowadays, I simply need to be in the container. I use ServletTestCase
merely because it is legal to instantiate local EJBs and call their methods
within the container. I believe Chris reported a similar usage pattern. The
ease of Cactus is in not needing to go through all the trouble of
stimulating the code as if a client had done it. For testing actual HTTP
protocol behavior this idea could be good. However, for testing EJBs I see
less purpose.
3) Obviously, bringing in Aspects opens up whole new realms of unit testing
possibilities. The question is, what will Cactus contribute on top of those?
Will we have our own mocking framework that uses AOP?
I haven't yet fully thought through this feedback, but I preferred getting
it out tonight to polishing my response.
Cheers,
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
Posted by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com>.
Oh, I forgot: Happy Christmas! :-)
-Vincent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Massol [mailto:vmassol@pivolis.com]
> Sent: 24 December 2003 12:22
> To: 'Cactus Developers List'
> Subject: [Vote/Action plan/Feedback] Cactus2
>
> Hi cactus committers,
>
> As every day goes by, I am more and more excited about Cactus v2 (see
>
http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/vmassol/archives/000520_cactus_v2_archi
> tecture_proposal.html). I'd like to start pumping some cactus v2 code.
>
> Before going on, I'd like to know what you think about Cactus v2 and
to
> decide on how we progress. I believe we have several options:
>
> 1/ create a jakarta-cactus/sandbox/cactus2 directory and write cactus
v2
> code in there
> 2/ request the creation of a jakarta-cactus2 CVS module (It will still
> be under the umbrella of the Cactus project - it's not the creation of
a
> new project).
>
> I personally much prefer solution 2/ as it is cleaner (and it works
> better with Eclipse projects too).
>
> We have also the option to request the creation of a
> cactus2-dev@jakarta.apache.org mailing list. If not, then all traffic
> will go to the existing cactus-dev ML. I also prefer to request the
> creation of such a list.
>
> I'm also curious to know how many of you are interested in
participating
> to Cactus 2 (or is it too early at this stage for you to know)? I've
> been talking to Jonas Boner (AspectWerkz author) and Chad Woolley
> (VirtualMock author) and I'd like to invite them to participate to the
> Cactus2 project if they're interested (it will be easier to do if we
> have separate jakarta-cactus2 CVS module I think).
>
> Anyway, I'm interested in any feedback you have!
>
> Please provide feedback on the proposed Cactus2 architecture. I'd like
> to put this doc in the new cactus2 CVS location so that everyone can
> help and it'll be easier to follow changes to it.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Vincent
> Wanna see JUnit in Action?
> (http://manning.com/massol)
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org