We actually still support forking all the way down to 1.3.

The reason we have no issues for this is
A) No-one is using it.
B) it works as advertised.

Take your pick ;)

Kristian


2013/2/19 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>

> On 19 February 2013 09:37, Stephen Connolly <
> [email protected]
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18 February 2013 21:55, Julien ll Nicoulaud <
> [email protected]>wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the heads up.
> >>
> >> I took a deeper look at Surefire code, and it seems to me this could be
> >> done directly on the client side by just wrapping
> >> CommandLineUtils.executeCommandLine() in ForkStarter (
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/blob/master/maven-surefire-common/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugin/surefire/booterclient/ForkStarter.java#L440
> >> ).
> >> This could be abstracted with a notion of "CommandLineExecutor". But may
> >> be
> >> it's less generic than just allowing to replace ForkedBooter with
> another
> >> implementation, and do it on the server side. What extension point did
> you
> >> had in mind ?
> >>
> >> Looks interesting but sharing the current work dir is not enough:
> >> > - what about dependencies (in local repo or in reactor)
> >>
> >> - what about multi modules project
> >> >
> >> I agree this will be problematic. In first version, user would have to
> >> make
> >> sure shares are properly setup. We can think about automatically setting
> >> up
> >> shares for known things like local repo, but I'd like to wait for
> Vagrant
> >> 1.1 to be out before starting investigating such things.
> >>
> >
> > A more interesting option would be to do something like KK's remote class
> > loader so that the classpath can be loaded across the SSH tunnel.
> >
> > https://github.com/jenkinsci/remoting
> >
>
> Though it might not be possible to support all the way down to JVM 1.3 with
> such a thing... (Given that surefire is supposed to support running the
> tests (via toolchains) all the way down to 1.3 (or did you drop that far
> Kristian?)
>
>
> >
> > -Stephen
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Julien
> >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to