> -----Original Message----- > From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jesse Glick > Sent: Saturday, 4 March 2006 5:50 AM > To: dev@ant.apache.org > Subject: Re: Junut4 > > Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > putting even more modifications into the current task (adding a new > > JUnitResultFormatter subclass for ignored tests, for example) will > > make it even more convoluted than it currently is. > > Of course. The question is how this additional complexity > balances against the duplication of code and resulting > maintenance problems if we have two tasks. Although there are > clearly semantic differences between > 3 and 4, there are also many similarities that can be > implemented in one place in one task vs. two places in two > tasks; forking isn't free. > > Any other takes on this? I could try to draft a standalone > <junit4> if there is general agreement that that is the way > to go.
Jesse: For what it's worth I would be *very* much in favour of a move to separate task. In the process you may want to consider constraints that such an external tasks could (hypothetically) declare within an antlib that would ensure meaningful error messages from ant if the new task is referenced without the prerequisites resources. Cheers, Steve. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
