[icedtea-web] RFC: add unit tests for the jnlp parser

[Jiri Vanek]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [icedtea-web] RFC: add unit tests for the jnlp parser
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:45:15 +0200
From: Jiri Vanek <jvanek at redhat.com>
To: distro-pkg-dev at openjdk.java.net

On 04/01/2011 11:54 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 04:56 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> On 15:30 Thu 31 Mar , Omair Majid wrote:
>>> On 03/31/2011 02:26 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>> On 13:40 Thu 31 Mar , Omair Majid wrote:
>>>>> On 03/30/2011 08:21 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does need documenting in README, but I'm happy for that to be a
>>>>>> separate patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patch attached. Does that look okay?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a bit brief.
>>>>
>>>> * What about documenting the --with-rhino/junit options?
>>>> * What about something specific about the JUnit tests?
>>>
>>> Okay, how about the new patch?
>>>
>> Still nothing on the JUnit stuff, which was the main reason I thought
>> we were
>> patching the docs. The custom output and the reasoning for it should
>> be noted
>> IMHO.
>>
>
> Ah, _now_ I get it. I thought by JUnit, you were referring to JUnit
> itself, not our frontend/formatter for it.
>
> I thought my documentation of that in tests/junit-runner/README was
> sufficient. Anyway, I have updated the README for that too. Any other
> suggestions?
>
> Cheers,
> Omair

Today I have tested and  walked through junit test for netx. Compraed to
TestNg I consider it as big step  back. I still do not see, why 3jars of
easily downloadable dependences (can be handled as drops), one
nicely-readable xml and annotations configuration and few lines of
make.am/configure and extremely good looking and informing output and
clear license was abandoned  for  one jar of dependence, mess makefile,
nearly no  configuration posibility, and custom java-class luncher
(extending such a complex thing can always bring troubles  and much
confusion inside), maybe confusing license and its quite strange
application (I'm not  deep enough in it).

TestNG - advantages - output, configuration(this is huge problem in
JUnit), small makefile integration, license, documentation
	disadvantages - 2 more jars as dependencies
JUnit - advantages - no dependences
	disadvantages - output, custom java-class luncher, no configuration,
license, to much of makefile in (find *class... :-/// )



Google can be my witness;)
http://www.google.com/search?q=junit+testng+comparison


Basicly I do not agree with Andrews arguments against TestNG. Eg. Deepak
agreed with them. Omair found them sufficient, And I'm finding them much
better.


Sorry for post-commit reaction but I have overlooked swap testng->junit
in distro emails.


Regards J.