ant elder wrote:
On 8/20/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm restarting the discussion on this because the previous thread [1]
did not reach a conclusion. I thought it would be useful to summarize
the issues with the extension samples as they stand, and explain how
the patch for TUSCANY-1356 resolves these issues.
In the implementation-crud sample (the client application code), we have
CRUDClient.java, crud.composite, and CRUDTestCase.java. CRUDClient.java
and crud.composite together provide a sample client that exercises
implementation-crud-extension, and these two files are correctly part
of implementation-crud because they are not part of the extension jar.
The problem with implementation-crud is the inclusion of CRUDTestCase.java
,
which does not use or test any of the above client code, but is just a
copy of the same file from implementation-crud-extension (and executed
by mvn when implementation-crud-extension is built). The patch for
TUSCANY-1356 eliminates this duplicate copy of CRUDTestCase.java in
implementation-crud and adds a new itest (not part of the samples) that
runs the implementation-crud client code to make sure it executes OK.
The crud.composite file from the implementation-crud sample client is also
duplicated as part of the test code for implementation-crud-extension.
There is no need for this code to be duplicated. The patch for
TUSCANY-1356 eliminates this duplicate copy of crud.composite by having
the JUnit test for implementation-crud-extension use the crud.composite
file that is part of implementation-crud.
Similarly, in the binding-echo-extension sample, under src/test there are
duplicates of the implementation code, composite file, and JUnit test code
from binding-echo. The patch for TUSCANY-1356 removes duplicate code
from binding-echo-extension by having the JUnit tests in
binding-echo-extension take this code from binding-echo, adds a non-sample
itest to exercise EchoBindingClient.java from binding-echo, and removes
redundant JUnit test code from binding-echo (not needed because the JUnit
tests in binding-echo-extension contains exactly the same code).
With these changes, all duplicate code is eliminated from these samples,
all sample code is tested either by sample JUnit tests or separate
itests, and the distinction between the extension and client/application
samples is much clearer.
Simon
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg19026.html
How about instead just deleting the implementation.crud sample? We've the
implementation.pojo sample now which seems like a better sample to me
anyway.
The patch for TUSCANY-1356 also corrects similar problems with the
binding-echo and binding-echo-extension samples. This part of the patch
could be applied while we consider whether or not to delete
implementation-crud.
I looked at the implementation-pojo-extension sample. It has no associated
client to run "out of the box" using ant. The issues addressed by
TUSCANY-1356 arose out of the work that was done on implementation-crud and
binding-echo to factor them into an extension sample and client/application
sample so that the client code could run out of the box using ant. If we
decide to replace implementation-crud by implementation-pojo, we would need
to fix up implementation-pojo-extension to add a client sample, with code
divided between the extension sample and the client sample in the same way
that the patch for TUSCANY-1356 does.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
