Hi Nicolas,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas Chalumeau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: lundi 8 novembre 2004 22:21
> To: Cactus Developers List
> Subject: Re: Cactus-132 bug
>
> I search hard and find why the project think there is no souce to compile
> :
> There is no bug here sorry ;)
Well I prefer that over a bug! :-)
>
> The test seems not good : the extend of project.xml is ../project.xml
> that have a <build/> tag.
> And define in project.xml of test06
> <build>
> <sourceDirectory>${basedir}/src/java</sourceDirectory>
> </build>
> solve it !
> And if you don't define the source dir, the compilation don't find any
> java sources. Strange I think this was a default value ?
Ok, thanks. What I don't understand is what is this Resources.java file in
test06? Felipe, any idea? It's not commented and its use is not obvious to
me. The fact that there is no sourceDirectory defined and that the test
still passes seem to indicate it's not required and it should be deleted. Is
this true? ;-)
Same, it took me a little while to understand the role of the
ResourcesTest.java file (that it would be executed in the container to
validate that the resource that should have been included in the cactified
WAR are there!). Would it be possible to comment all files that are
committed so that we have at least the same level of comment quality than
what exists in the rest of Cactus? We don't need to overdo it, but anywhere
where it's not obvious would be much welcome... :-)
Also what do you think about removing the following in ResourceTest.java:
public ResourcesTest()
{
super();
}
public ResourcesTest(String name)
{
super(name);
}
This seems completely useless to me and we've paid great attention in all
the rest of the Cactus code not to have this (because it's not useful IMO).
Let me know if there's a reason I don't see! :-)
Last, the rule we have followed so far in Cactus was to name JUnit tests
with the following pattern: TestXXXX.java. I know lots of people prefer the
pattern XXXTest.java (I also do prefer it now - I didn't some time back).
The problem is that we have to be consistent and follow the existing
pattern. If we want to change it, fine, I'm all for it, but we would need to
change it for all files (which can be done in a scattered way).
I realize that there are a lot of conventions on Cactus that may not all
have been written done in either Checkstyle or documentation. Sorry about
this. We can probably improve this in some manner.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> Nicolas,
>
> Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> >Hi Nicolas,
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Nicolas Chalumeau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: lundi 8 novembre 2004 20:22
> >>To: Cactus Developers List
> >>Subject: Cactus-132 bug
> >>
> >>I read the pointer you provide me and find somethig :
> >>Using the ant:classes with include pattern exludes the **/*.class of the
> >>cactifywar. the pattern should be include by default.
> >>I just add a Hello.java in the src dir of test06, call cactus and don't
> >>find any Hello.class in test-cactus-classes.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't understand what you mean.
> >
> When I re-read this I don't understand myself too :)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
