|
»
« Return to Thread: Shale test status
Re: Shale test status
by Paul Spencer-3
::
Rate this Message:
I tend to agree with Gary on this one. We need to grow the community.
My other objection to moving Shale is based around it's implementation
independents. By maintaining Shale's independence, we minimize the risk
of including a MyFaces implementation dependency, like myfaces-common,
into Shale-test. Yes, I know may of Shale's committers are MyFaces
committers.
Going forward, I would like to see Shale's sub-projects have their own
release cycle, but this discussion should be held in a different thread.
Paul Spencer
Gary VanMatre wrote:
> -------------- Original message ---------------------- From:
> "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...>
>> wrote:
>>> Hey Simon,
>>>
>>> I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the
>>> recent thread on this topic.
>>>
>>> However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this
>>> might be a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think
>>> Gary agrees, though :-).
>> I am also +1 on the move ;-)
>>
>
> Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the
> normal community protocol. For goodness sakes, what if every project
> felt it necessary to pull commons digester into their own just
> because they use it.
>
> I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale
> project. However, if the communities feel that the only way we can
> find volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit
> snobbish) is to move to MyFaces, then so be it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
>>> <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may
>>>> know, MyFaces uses Shale test for its unit testing. However,
>>>> the new API and contracts involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that
>>>> current test fails with an UnsupportedOperationException since
>>>> some test implementations don't override the new method that
>>>> weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for
>>>> shale-test framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it
>>>> or will it be integrated in in part or completely in MyFaces
>>>> with time?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> ~ Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
>>> http://twitter.com/kito99 http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE
>>> consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com -
>>> JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info +1 203-404-4848 x3
>>>
>>> * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
>>> http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
>> *
>>
>>
>> -- Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions:
>> http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter:
>> http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
My other objection to moving Shale is based around it's implementation
independents. By maintaining Shale's independence, we minimize the risk
of including a MyFaces implementation dependency, like myfaces-common,
into Shale-test. Yes, I know may of Shale's committers are MyFaces
committers.
Going forward, I would like to see Shale's sub-projects have their own
release cycle, but this discussion should be held in a different thread.
Paul Spencer
Gary VanMatre wrote:
> -------------- Original message ---------------------- From:
> "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...>
>> wrote:
>>> Hey Simon,
>>>
>>> I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the
>>> recent thread on this topic.
>>>
>>> However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this
>>> might be a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think
>>> Gary agrees, though :-).
>> I am also +1 on the move ;-)
>>
>
> Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the
> normal community protocol. For goodness sakes, what if every project
> felt it necessary to pull commons digester into their own just
> because they use it.
>
> I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale
> project. However, if the communities feel that the only way we can
> find volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit
> snobbish) is to move to MyFaces, then so be it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
>>> <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may
>>>> know, MyFaces uses Shale test for its unit testing. However,
>>>> the new API and contracts involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that
>>>> current test fails with an UnsupportedOperationException since
>>>> some test implementations don't override the new method that
>>>> weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for
>>>> shale-test framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it
>>>> or will it be integrated in in part or completely in MyFaces
>>>> with time?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> ~ Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
>>> http://twitter.com/kito99 http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE
>>> consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com -
>>> JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info +1 203-404-4848 x3
>>>
>>> * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
>>> http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
>> *
>>
>>
>> -- Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions:
>> http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter:
>> http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
« Return to Thread: Shale test status
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
