On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 12:25:22AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 06:13:29PM -0500, Tavin Cole wrote: > < > > > > If it keeps the classes from building with standard Junit then it > > > definitely should go - I never intended any imports from outside the > > > junit.framework package. If you want convenience just do: > > > > > > alias jtest="java junit.xrunners.SimpleTestRunner" > > > > Apparently, all that is needed is to rename junit.xrunners.SimpleTestRunner > > to junit.textui.TestRunner (which can only run one test at a time). > > To not create problems for Junit, I don't want to give identical names > to any classes unless they really are identical. Just get off this man, > why do you need to add main methods like that to begin with?
I'm not on this in the first place. I wouldn't have added them if I had known that junit.xrunners.SimpleTestRunner wasn't a standard junit class. At the time it semed like a reasonable convenience. Earlier, I talked to Niklas Mehner and he said that junit.textui.TestRunner worked the same as junit.xrunners.SimpleTestRunner except that the latter accepted multiple tests at once. So it would seem reasonable for us simply to provide an implementation of the former. Whether the main methods stay or go isn't really important. -tc _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
