[jboss-as7-dev] Distribution of testing modules

[Kabir Khan]

One question playing on my mind is that in AS 7 we're effectively locking users into a specific version of Arquillian and friends. From talks with Aslak, my understanding is that this is kind of different from what is done when running in other containers, where these dependencies are brought in by bundling the arquillian dependencies in the test deployments. What we have at the moment is probably faster since there is less stuff that needs doing to the deployments, but locking against the version might not be ideal.

Maybe as David originally suggests, a separate modules root for all the arquillian stuff would be a good idea. That way we could create modules for different Arquillian/Shrinkwrap/JSFUnit/whatever-else versions combinations.

On 18 Mar 2011, at 14:34, Brian Stansberry wrote:

> On 3/17/11 9:05 PM, Bruno Georges wrote:
>> Thank you Andrew
>> I think there are requirements where size matters and will require to exclude   modules like those. Outside the fact that here in AsiaPac you may have to order and drink your coffee before u get 10mb downloaded :-), Am thinking in term of the different "profiles" like those targeting cloud, production, smart devices, etc  although this can be customized later it is good to aet on the  mechanism/infrastructure now.
>> It is my understanding tjat profiles are slighlty different from pre-AS7, but I may be on wrong on this.
>> 
> 
> The AS 7 profile notion is all about configuration and what modules get 
> used in the runtime. There's no different set of jars associated with 
> different profiles.
> 
> Modules all declare their dependencies, so given a particular profile it 
> should be possible to analyze the set of necessary modules and create a 
> distribution limited to that set. We shouldn't use the term "profile" 
> for that though.
> 
>> +1 on tooling /maven
>> 
>> --
>> Bruno Georges
>> 
>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:35, Andrew Lee Rubinger<andrew.rubinger at redhat.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> To me, lean and mean is a matter of RAM footprint and CPU cycles, not
>>> necessarily download size.  Some blogs might use MB count as some
>>> indicator, but this is the age of broadband.  I could pull down 100M
>>> from my phone before I my coffee order was filled.
>>> 
>>> I'm in favor of arming developers with all tools they'll need to develop
>>> (which I believe implies testing) alongside the distribution.
>>> 
>>> Profiles, on the other hand, refer to the services started at AS boot.
>>> And with on-demand that becomes even less of an issue.
>>> 
>>> So yes, I think it's natural to put SW, Arquillian and the like inside
>>> the distro.
>>> 
>>> Users grabbing AS via Maven can pull these in transitively, much like we
>>> do now in AS6's "depchain" module.
>>> 
>>> S,
>>> ALR
>>> 
>>> On 03/17/2011 09:30 PM, Bruno Georges wrote:
>>>> Does it make sense to align this with the notions of profiles?
>>>> I like the idea of shipping a lean and mean which is what applications developer are used too and look for, however new development paradigm will be relying on those modules.
>>>> Saying that I like the idea of isolating them in a different area.
>>>> I don't know what's the best option for our users, am interested to read feedbacks on this.
>>>> Maybe Max and Andrew have thoughts on how we could provide those modules to the end users (maven/Eclipse,...?) without fattening the distro.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Bruno Georges
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 5:56, "David M. Lloyd"<david.lloyd at redhat.com>   wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In our current modules distribution for AS7 we currently are distributing:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - JUnit
>>>>> - HTMLUnit
>>>>> - JSFUnit
>>>>> - Arquillian SureFire
>>>>> - the AS7 Arquillian subsystem
>>>>> - ShrinkWrap
>>>>> - Various glue and support modules for the above
>>>>> - Probably more test-oriented stuff I missed in my glance-over
>>>>> 
>>>>> The question is:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Do we really want to be distributing these test frameworks?
>>>>> 2. If so, should we put them in their own area somehow?
>>>>> 3. Also if so, should be recommend, as a policy, how and when these
>>>>> modules should be used by end users?
>>>>> 4. If not, how can we exclude them from the final build?
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> - DML
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
> 
> 
> -- 
> Brian Stansberry
> Principal Software Engineer
> JBoss by Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev