On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:26 PM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/08/2009, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Jukka Zitting<jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jörg Schaible<joerg.schai...@gmx.de> >> wrote: >> >> The only concern I have are the new Broken(In/Out)putStream >> implementations. >> >> IMHO those are somewhat out-of-scope for IO, you explicitly mention that >> >> these implementations are for testing purposes. I'd rather see >> commons-test >> >> reactivated than putting such code into a component that is normally used >> >> in production code. >> > >> > If you feel strongly about this I guess we can do that or move the >> > broken streams to src/test/java inside Commons IO where they are >> > already used for testing the tagged stream classes (any downstream >> > users would then need to copy the sources). >> > >> > But personally I don't understand the "normally used in production" >> > argument. Test code benefits from reuse just as much as normal code. >> > And there are a lot of test projects (TCKs, etc.) that are in >> > production use. >> > >> > AFAIUI the purpose of Commons is to create reusable code, regardless >> > of the scope or field of that reuse. And Commons IO is defined as >> > "library of utilities to assist with developing IO functionality". >> > IMHO utilities to help test IO code are clearly within this scope. >> >> >> +1 > > +1, OK by me to keep them in IO.
Commons-io can "publish" a test jar, using Maven2: http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-attached-tests.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
