Chris Hostetter wrote:
: I included the jar in lib, but exclude it from distribution, is this ok?
excluding it from the war isn't the same as excluding it from distribution
(it looks like it would still be included in both the source and binary
tgz/zip releases).
oh right...
assuming this is what you mean by easymock...
http://www.easymock.org/
http://www.easymock.org/License.html
...then before any real questions about wether or not it's useful and do
we want to use it can be answered we have to figure out wether we re
allowed to use it -- it's the MIT License, which seems to (currently)
be acceptible for 3rd party libraries included in apache releases...
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
... but it would definitely needs to be mentioned in the NOTICE.txt
I added a line in rev 535581. We can remove it (with the .jar and
tests) if that is a better choice.
As for the "do we want it" questions, i'm not really familiar with
easymock or jMock, so i don't have an opinion ...
I think we need something... without some mock framework, testing
HttpServlets is difficult. This accounts for a serious lack of tests in
that area. I have avoided writing some test (like this one) because
there is too much overhead.
It is unclear if the jmock license is compatible:
http://www.jmock.org/license.html
For the record, i think adding a new 3rd party jar is a weighty enough
change that it should have warranted opening a Jirra issue and asking for
comments prior to commiting. I also think that the bug which motivatied
this test probably should have been filed in jira, so that if anyone else
ever asked about it, we would have refrence URL to cite when discussing
the bug, the fix, and any potential complications (or future bugs) that
may arrise from it.
got it. I was trying to follow the "fix bugs with a test" guideline was
quick to commit since this is in the testing side, but i see your point.
Is it still worth opening an issue?
ryan
