> -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 February 2003 22:32 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: Re: [Proposal] Package Refactoring Proposal > > Vincent Massol wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: 24 February 2003 12:02 > >>To: Cactus Developers List > >>Subject: Re: [Proposal] Package Refactoring Proposal > >> > >>Vincent, > >> > >>I think it'd be interesting to get a JDepend report into our framework > >>build process. That would help us identify problems with the current > >>package structure as well as with any structure we'll be moving to. > >> > >>It's pretty easy to do (even without using Maven ;-) ), and I'd give > >>it a shot when a find some spare hours. What do you think? > > > > Hum... One of the reason I wanted a cleaner package structure is that I > > needed to perform some refactoring to decouple classes. > > > > For example, I would like to be able to use the FormAuthentication class > > both from a ServletTestCase and from a StaticTestCase (a Static test > > case simply calls a URL and has no testXXX() methods - only begin and > > end ones). However, FormAuthentication requires a WebRequest and does > > not currently work with a BaseWebRequest. > > > > Thus, we should not rely too much on the current dependencies as they > > may not be correct evyerwhere. > > > > That said, I have never been able to get anything useful from jdepend > > (not that it isn't nice, just that I always don't know what to do after > > reading the report). > > Yeah, it's a bit tricky. Definitely easier to use on projects with > smaller codebases, now that I've starting letting it go on Cactus :-P > > That said, it's just a metric, and it *may* help us figure out problems > with the package structure. For example, I very much like avoiding > cyclic dependancies between packages. JDepend says Cactus has quite a > few of those, but I haven't nailed them all down yet. > > For example, there's a cyclic dependancy between o.a.c and o.a.c.util. > That seems to come from the o.a.c.util.AbstractWebConfiguration and > o.a.c.util.FilterConfiguration classes. Shouldn't these move into the > o.a.c.configuration package like the others?
Yes. I simply forgot these 2 classes... :-) Done now. Thanks -Vincent > > > If you could demonstrate it is useful for us, sure please go ahead! :-) > > Not sure yet ;-) > > -- > Christopher Lenz > /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
