EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: XDOCLET UNIT TEST was : RE: [Xdoclet-devel] Re: [Xdoclet-
> user] 1.1.2 breakage
>
> Ehrrm, I meant I agree with Andrew (I disagree with Vincent :).
>
> Anyway, the package scope is not a big deal now, but it will probably
be
> when we start the new r
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Aslak
> > Hellesoy
> > Sent: 12. mars 2002 00:15
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: XDOCLET UNIT TEST was : RE: [Xdoclet-devel] Re:
> > [Xdoclet-user] 1.1.2 breakage
> >
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
> Of Aslak Hellesoy
> Sent: mardi 12 mars 2002 0:15
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: XDOCLET UNIT TEST was : RE: [Xdoclet-devel] Re:
> [Xdoclet-user] 1.1.2 break
XDOCLET UNIT TEST was : RE: [Xdoclet-devel] Re:
> [Xdoclet-user] 1.1.2 breakage
>
>
> I agree with Vincent. It's actually bad design to let all classes
> be public.
> IMO, as much as possible should be package private in order to
> make the API
> simpler. Expose only what *
architecture begins to shape!
/Aslak
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrew
> Stevens
> Sent: 11. mars 2002 23:25
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: XDOCLET UNIT TEST was : RE: [Xdoclet-devel] Re:
> [X
t: lundi 11 mars 2002 23:25
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: XDOCLET UNIT TEST was : RE: [Xdoclet-devel] Re:
> [Xdoclet-user] 1.1.2 breakage
>
>
> A wise old hermit known only as Vincent Harcq
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> once said:
>
> > I just commit th
A wise old hermit known only as Vincent Harcq
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> once said:
> I just commit this.
>
> Rules
>
>
> All Test Java sources will be under "xdoclet.test" and "xdoclet.retest"
> (re is for Regression)
>
> In directory "core/test" :
>
> - src/xdoclet/test : put here unit t
gt; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Xdoclet-devel] Re: [Xdoclet-user] 1.1.2 breakage
>
>
> I took a quick look at how the test cases in XDoclet are laid
> out and I didn't find a simple way to drop in a test case to
> verify that Ant property substitution is working p
I took a quick look at how the test cases in XDoclet are laid out and I
didn't find a simple way to drop in a test case to verify that Ant property
substitution is working properly. Here's the quick hack that I used to make
sure its working ok though:
Map map = new HashMap();
map.put( "prop"
Yes, this turns out to have been my fault. I will attempt to get a test
case written to ensure this doesn't happen again. The patch to fix this is:
cvs -q diff -u core/src/xdoclet/XDocletTagSupport.java
Index: core/src/xdoclet/XDocletTagSupport.java
=
10 matches
Mail list logo
