Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 11:04, Marc Portier ha scritto: I've been largely skimreading this list last couple of weeks so maybe I missed an important update on the svn switch for cocoon? IIRC there was going to be a spot for these kind of efforts? In any case it would be nice to have something small-scale here and now. OK, as a *temporary* solution while I get myself up-to-date on SVN, I have setup a repository on my machine. If anybody wants CVS access (over ssh only) drop me a line stating desired username and password and I'll arange it ASAP. Ugo -- Ugo Cei - http://beblogging.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 01:18, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto: Ugo Cei wrote: Agreed, but even if we cannot prove that code is correct with unit tests alone, we can at least hope that - statistically - code that has 100% test coverage will have less bugs than code that has 10% test coverage. Unfortunately, my impression is that Cocoon is now at the lower end of the spectrum. Ugo, tests help but don't really buy us anything: have a community that is strong and diverse enough to do the regression testing for us. Ouch! I can't believe I'm reading this. I'm not going to try to convince you that shifting the burden of testing from the shoulders of lazy programmers onto those of unsuspecting users is a bad thing. I want to be positive instead and tell you what tests do buy us: - less recourse to debuggers - better documentation - enabling refactoring - better design - faster development In the end it's a matter of confidence. You're developing better code faster when you have the cconfiidence that, if you break something, tests will tell you very quickly. Let's not mix concerns: cocoon has few tests, agreed, but this has nothing to do with the architecture. I never meant that to imply that Cocoon's architecture is not good because it has few tests. But I believe that having a wide test coverage leads to designing components that are more amenable to testing in isolation and thus less coupled. And I think we all agree that loose coupling is a worthwhile objective. Ugo -- Ugo Cei - http://beblogging.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Ugo Cei wrote: (Note to self: rewrite unit tests so that they don't depend on BeanFactory). yes and no: I've seen myself do both: have tests that go on detail level and just wire beans themselves in the setup() but also: have tests that use the beanfactory to do so (using a stupid base class that extends TestCase) In short: I see no reason why not to have both, the latter help document typical configuration settings for the bean wiring still have to get into your actual code sample though, by the way: could we arrange having a cvs somewhere? regards, -marc= -- Marc Portierhttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 10:34, Marc Portier ha scritto: still have to get into your actual code sample though, by the way: could we arrange having a cvs somewhere? How about cocoondev.org? Is the migration over? I asked Steven some time ago about hosting the SpringPetstore block and he askde me to wait until August. Or would it be better to create a new module in the Apache CVS? I'd rather avoid SF, I've had unpleasant experiences in the past. What about a mailing list? Ugo -- Ugo Cei - http://beblogging.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 10:34, Marc Portier ha scritto: still have to get into your actual code sample though, by the way: could we arrange having a cvs somewhere? How about cocoondev.org? Is the migration over? I asked Steven some time ago about hosting the SpringPetstore block and he askde me to wait until August. there have been some upgrades on the machinery recently, but I remember him making more serious shifting plans after his return from holidays... I'm not into his planning in detail but I would guess this to mean mid aug at the earliest Or would it be better to create a new module in the Apache CVS? IMHO it belongs in the cocoon repo, no? I've been largely skimreading this list last couple of weeks so maybe I missed an important update on the svn switch for cocoon? IIRC there was going to be a spot for these kind of efforts? In any case it would be nice to have something small-scale here and now. I'd rather avoid SF, I've had unpleasant experiences in the past. me too What about a mailing list? I would not leave this spot unless (god forbid) people actually asked to take it elsewhere regards, -marc= -- Marc Portierhttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Marc Portier wrote: I've been largely skimreading this list last couple of weeks so maybe I missed an important update on the svn switch for cocoon? Yep. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-devm=109043692326007 Vadim
Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 10:34, Marc Portier ha scritto: still have to get into your actual code sample though, by the way: could we arrange having a cvs somewhere? How about cocoondev.org? Is the migration over? I asked Steven some time ago about hosting the SpringPetstore block and he askde me to wait until August. Or would it be better to create a new module in the Apache CVS? I'd rather avoid SF, I've had unpleasant experiences in the past. As I tried to explain, as a Cocoon committer you should be able to experiment in a branch. As soon as the SVN conversion is over, you can create a butterfly branch and all Cocooon committers can work there if they want to. What about a mailing list? We're having an unpleasant discussion about creating mailing lists on the community list... ugh IMO the right thing is to ask a vote for it, and then ask infra to set it up as per the Cocoon PMC decision. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: What about a mailing list? We're having an unpleasant discussion about creating mailing lists on the community list... ugh IMO the right thing is to ask a vote for it, and then ask infra to set it up as per the Cocoon PMC decision. I don't want to see another mailing list. That would create a fork of Cocoon, which is _not_ what I understand you as trying to do. All discussion of Butterfly _must_ happen here, so that we all have some oversight over what is going on, whether we want to participate or not. (I'm sure we're all skilled enough at skipping irrelevant messages, aren't we!) Regards, Upayavira
Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 15:17, Nicola Ken Barozzi ha scritto: As I tried to explain, as a Cocoon committer you should be able to experiment in a branch. As soon as the SVN conversion is over, you can create a butterfly branch and all Cocooon committers can work there if they want to. Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't a branch include all the sources from the main trunk when you create it? If so, it isn't appropriate, since I want to start from a clean slate. IMO the right thing is to ask a vote for it, and then ask infra to set it up as per the Cocoon PMC decision. OK, but unless someone objects, for the moment I think we can continue the discussion on this list, as Marc suggested. Ugo -- Ugo Cei - http://beblogging.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 15:17, Nicola Ken Barozzi ha scritto: As I tried to explain, as a Cocoon committer you should be able to experiment in a branch. As soon as the SVN conversion is over, you can create a butterfly branch and all Cocooon committers can work there if they want to. Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't a branch include all the sources from the main trunk when you create it? If so, it isn't appropriate, since I want to start from a clean slate. It does. You would probably want to create a new directory as a peer to 'trunk'. -- Dave Brondsema : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brondsema.net : personal http://www.splike.com : programming http://csx.calvin.edu : student org
Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Ugo Cei wrote: Il giorno 22/lug/04, alle 15:17, Nicola Ken Barozzi ha scritto: As I tried to explain, as a Cocoon committer you should be able to experiment in a branch. As soon as the SVN conversion is over, you can create a butterfly branch and all Cocooon committers can work there if they want to. Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't a branch include all the sources from the main trunk when you create it? If so, it isn't appropriate, since I want to start from a clean slate. a branch in SVN is just a copy. up to you to decide what to copy. in case of zero copy is just a svn mkdir http://...; IMO the right thing is to ask a vote for it, and then ask infra to set it up as per the Cocoon PMC decision. OK, but unless someone objects, for the moment I think we can continue the discussion on this list, as Marc suggested. +1 -- Stefano. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [butterfly] spring dependant tests (was Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?))
Upayavira dijo: Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: What about a mailing list? We're having an unpleasant discussion about creating mailing lists on the community list... ugh IMO the right thing is to ask a vote for it, and then ask infra to set it up as per the Cocoon PMC decision. I don't want to see another mailing list. That would create a fork of Cocoon, which is _not_ what I understand you as trying to do. All discussion of Butterfly _must_ happen here, so that we all have some oversight over what is going on, whether we want to participate or not. (I'm sure we're all skilled enough at skipping irrelevant messages, aren't we!) +1 for Upayavira proposal. We will discuss things here. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
