Thanks Guys,
I will do as advised, and submit my patch once I get all my tests to pass.
Kind regards,
Rey Malahay
On 9 September 2011 01:28, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:37 AM, rey malahay wrote:
> > I appreciate the fact that this issue is still under discussion. I
Hi,
Am 08.09.2011 09:31, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL
wrote:
The interests Adam alluded to extend beyond just the direct interests of the
ASF. Adding any new third party code or package is often a very, very big
deal for those of us
else
> who will end up with that work dumped on them. I would not be a good team
> player if I didn't advocate for conservatism on this point.
>
> Mel
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 09,
t.
Mel
-Original Message-
From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 9:49 AM
To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
Subject: Re: Mocking Frameworks
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL
wrote:
> Jukka - It isn't about what I
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL
wrote:
> Jukka - It isn't about what I 'want' to go through.
Yeah, sorry for picking on you specifically. My point is that what
you're describing is a rather high level of oversight that isn't
mandatory or even desirable for the av
ry bureaucratic hoops. My only position is that that is
indeed actual work and I'm not convinced the benefit is sufficient to
justify it.
-Mel
-Original Message-
From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:28 AM
To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:37 AM, rey malahay wrote:
> I appreciate the fact that this issue is still under discussion. In the
> meantime, I will put my work, which I intended to submit to the project, on
> the backburners.
Please feel free to go ahead with your patch. Just add the mock
librar
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Adam Nichols wrote:
> If there's a way to make it "excluded by default" when building a
> release version of the jar, then that should alleviate my concerns of
> adding another dependency. I'm not at all familiar with Maven, so I'm
> not sure how optional depe
ssion we archive all source for all 3rd party
> components
> >> and have to show the ability to build and support such. All artifacts
> >> required for the build have to be traceable and approved If the test
> >> harness requires some new artifact then that will hav
ponents
>> and have to show the ability to build and support such. All artifacts
>> required for the build have to be traceable and approved If the test
>> harness requires some new artifact then that will have to be approved.
>>
>> Mel
>>
>> -Original Message
t; Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 3:31 AM
> To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Mocking Frameworks
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL
> wrote:
> > The interests Adam alluded to extend beyond just the direct interests of
&g
: Mocking Frameworks
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL
wrote:
> The interests Adam alluded to extend beyond just the direct interests of
the
> ASF. Adding any new third party code or package is often a very, very big
> deal for those of us who depe
Thanks for upholding the ASF's principles, Jukka.
On 8 September 2011 01:31, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL
> wrote:
> > The interests Adam alluded to extend beyond just the direct interests of
> the
> > ASF. Adding any new third par
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL
wrote:
> The interests Adam alluded to extend beyond just the direct interests of the
> ASF. Adding any new third party code or package is often a very, very big
> deal for those of us who depend on ASF components such as PDFBox.
Thanks Guys, point taken.
On 7 September 2011 08:13, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL <
m.marti...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> Just a couple of quick comments.
> -Original Message-
> From: rey malahay [mailto:reymala...@gmail.com]
>
> >
> > If it is a question of writing quality/ better code, then a
Just a couple of quick comments.
-Original Message-
From: rey malahay [mailto:reymala...@gmail.com]
>
> If it is a question of writing quality/ better code, then adding another
> library that supports the quality objective should not be a big deal. The
> last time I checked, the Apache So
tests for PDFBox? I am currently using Mockito. Is this acceptable?
> >
> > Please advise.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Rey Malahay
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: rey malahay
> > Date: 3 September 2011 15:02
>
e?
>
> Please advise.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Rey Malahay
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: rey malahay
> Date: 3 September 2011 15:02
> Subject: Mocking Frameworks
> To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
>
>
> Dear PDFBox Team,
>
> May I use a m
message --
From: rey malahay
Date: 3 September 2011 15:02
Subject: Mocking Frameworks
To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
Dear PDFBox Team,
May I use a mocking framework in my unit tests? I am currently using Mockito
in conjunction with JUnit, to write my unit tests and mock classes that do
not form
Dear PDFBox Team,
May I use a mocking framework in my unit tests? I am currently using Mockito
in conjunction with JUnit, to write my unit tests and mock classes that do
not form part of the test objective. If so, how do we include the framework
in question with our patch submission?
Please advis
20 matches
Mail list logo
