2012/4/7 Konstantin Kolinko <knst.koli...@gmail.com>: > 2012/4/7 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: >> On 06/04/2012 22:16, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: >>> 2012/4/6 <ma...@apache.org>: >>>> Author: markt >>>> Date: Fri Apr 6 18:44:19 2012 >>>> New Revision: 1310541 >>>> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1310541&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> Don't use static imports >>> >>> ? >>> >>> 1. I would say that I'd prefer to use static imports in JUnit tests. >>> They cause no confusion here and are easier to read >>> >>> (and using static imports for those assert methods is what is >>> recommended in many places). >> >> Having seen other projects avoid them and then compared the two styles I >> prefer not using them. > > In general I'd also prefer not to use them, but JUnit tests are a > special exception where this usage is well-known. > > I think we already discussed this (and thus are our checkstyle rules). >
Maybe it was not really discussed, but here are related threads: http://tomcat.markmail.org/thread/slydzz6hu6mrkzgd - my proposal to update to JUnit 4 and discussion of it http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1150644 - my update to checkstyle configuration, as part of migration to JUnit 4 allowing this static import http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1150690 - my update to checkstyle configuration, as part of migration to JUnit 4 updating import order rule >>> 2. It should be already allowed by configuration in checkstyle.xml, >>> so was there a problem? >> >> No problem. Just a personal itch. >> >> I was going to work my way through the remainder if nobody complained >> but I am happy to revert it if folks prefer the static imports. >> >> Best regards, Konstantin Kolinko --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
