On 12/22/06, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell_at_sun.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Michael Bouschen wrote:
>
> Hi Wonseok,
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 12/22/06, Michael Bouschen <Michael.Bouschen_at_sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Wonseok,
> >
> > Hi Marina, Michael and Tom
> >
> > I would like to name the CVS-managed sample test.properties "
> > sample-test.properties" rather than "default-db.properties" because it
> > can contain other properties other than db properties and it's just sample.
> > And I will delete the " test.properties" in CVS.
> >
> > Using the name sample-test.properties sounds good to me. Are you
> > planning to change the build.xml and default the property test.propertyto
> > sample-test.properties?
> > <property name="test.properties" location="./sample-test.properties"/>
> >
>
> My idea was just that sample-test.properties which is managed in
> repository is just sample and users should make test.properties by copying
> it. So build.xml should remain as it is. Do you mean that
> sample-test.properties should be used if test.properties doesn't exist?
>
> the issue I see is that it does not run out of the box, because build.xmldefaults to a file that does not exists in the cvs repository. If I check
> out a fresh entity-persistence-test directory, I first need to manually copy
> sample-test.properties to test.properties before I can run the tests.
>
>
> I don't like this at all. I think the tests should run out of the box with
> the default database and default settings. One of the worst experiences for
> a new developer on a project is to have to comb through lots of info just to
> get stuff to work, and deliberately making it difficult is a bad idea.
>
Then, how about making a new ant target like "ant setup" which generates
test.properties file from the sample-test.properties. This adds one more
step to run test at first time, but readme.txt will explain this clearly. So
new developers can run test on JavaDB without modifying properties. It also
allows us to modify it directly without concerning version control.
What do you think?
For me the checked in properties file serves two purposes:
> - it defines the default properties that work w/o changes
> - it is a sample I can use to create a properties file with my database
> settings
> I would prefer that build.xml refers the file that is checked in. There is
> still no need to edit this file, because in my ~/build.xml I can default to
> a different file that is not under version control.
>
>
> I like this idea.
>
> Craig
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards Michael
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Craig Russell
>
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell_at_sun.com <Craig.Russell_at_sun.com>
>
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>