--On Monday, February 20, 2006 11:25 PM -1000 Aaron Kagawa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's an idea, why don't I just add the code to hackySensor_JUnit? That
might complicate things, but that idea seems like the "right" idea. Since
there could be an Ant, Command Line, and Maven sensors. Does
hackySensor_JUnit stand for all sensors that deal with JUnit or does that
mean only Ant based Junit sensors?
This seems "right" to me, too. And come to think of it, if you do it this
way, it might be quite easy to refactor and reduce the total amount of code
(it looked to me like the Maven junit sensor cut-and-pasted a lot of code
from the standard JUnit sensor).
Cheers,
Philip
