I wrote it before I had my apache commit bit. there are pluses and minuses to combining them.
For instance it is harder to configure different defaults for goals when they are the same plugin. But in any case, for either path changing the bindings to make them easier to use will still require adjusting the default lifecycle and introducing plugin bindings to the default lifecycle... we need to take care in doing that On 28 October 2014 17:22, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: > If my memory serves me right, the failsafe plugin was conceived/developed > by a third party -- perhaps codehaus. Then it was later adapted by Apache. > I think this is maybe why the two haven't been merged (yet). > > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Jeff Jensen < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Integrating Failsafe in the same way as Surefire would be great for a > lot > > > of people I think. > > > > > > I agree! > > > > > > Personally, I wonder why we don't merge them. > > > > > > I've wondered the same thing... is there a technical reason why it > "won't" > > or is difficult to make work? > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Benson Margulies < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Personally, I wonder why we don't merge them. > > > > > > Failsafe adds some lifestyle phase bindings and then changes some > > > defaults. Otherwise, it's a giant anti-DRY. Why not expand surefire to > > > have the extra executions with shifted defaults for things like test > > > class names? > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Oliver B. Fischer > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > @Paul: Yes I think so or we find a way more convenient in this > moment. > > > > > > > > @all: I think this shows perfectly why Failsafe should be integrated > as > > > > Surefire already is. > > > > > > > > Oliver > > > > > > > > Am 28.10.14 16:02, schrieb Paul Benedict: > > > >> > > > >> Thanks. Now I know when to use this. For my situation, which is > > > >> integration > > > >> testing against an existing database, I don't need to setup an > > > >> environment; > > > >> this explains why I never needed to use the plugin. There are other > > > cases > > > >> the plugin will be valuable, but I wonder if this is why most others > > > stick > > > >> with surefire. I guess programmers don't scratch unless there's an > > itch. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Paul > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Anders Hammar <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> The answer is on the index page of the failsafe plugin [1]. > > > >>> "If you use the Surefire Plugin for running tests..." > > > >>> > > > >>> /Anders > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-failsafe-plugin/ > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Paul Benedict < > [email protected] > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> (to > > > >>> [email protected]> > > > >>> https://bitbucket.org/obfischer/bugreport-maven-failsafe.git > > > >>> lot > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > >
