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

[Jiri Vanek]

On 04/04/2011 02:57 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:


If somebody have recieved this twice, then sorry - I have suspicion that 
my email client is broken:-/ The emails from me to me are not delivered:-/
>
>
> -------- 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.