I don't think anyone is suggesting that we move the implementation classes onto the application classpath -- as you say, there would be a riot of renaming and native fix-ups required that would make this a non-trivial task.
Regards, Tim Rodrigo Kumpera wrote: > I think allowing tests to be fully executable in Java (i.e. a > certified jvm) would be really tricky. Some black-magic to rename all > classes would be required, and testing some core functionality would > be really hard - think synchronization and threading. > > But for most classes this is perfectly doable. Just rename everything > but some core classes (Object, String and a few more final ones) to be > in the test.* package. For example, java.util.ArrayList would be > test.java.util.ArrayList. I think this could work, most of the times, > and allow testing harmony classlib inside a jvm. > > But then, the real advantage of doing this would be if we could > compare the results between a certified jvm and harmony and sport > mismatched results. I just can't see many bugs been caught by this > approach only. > > Rodrigo > > > On 1/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> One thing that's popped up on the "Test suite layout" thread is the >> thought that we need to b0rk the canonical package and naming >> conventions for unit tests in order to be able to run things on the boot >> classpath of the VM. I think this issue is important enough and >> fundamental enough to warrant it's own thread. >> >> First, do we really need to do this? I thought that we (Tim and I) had >> informally discussed this at ApacheCon and came to some good conclusion >> where we were able to figure out a trick. >> >> Second, shouldn't we think about providing a test environment in which >> we can completely control the environment - we can test the class >> library in a container that can be run in any VM so we have full control >> over security and other issues? >> >> Of course, I'd like both. If we do have the "trick" that we talked >> about, then we can use canonical JUnit (or TestNG) naming and package >> conventions, which I think is important. >> >> geir >> >> > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
