Re: [aspectj-dev] classes without package

[Alexandre Vasseur <avasseur@xxxxxxxxx>]

There was indeed 2 things in weaver/testsrc/<nopackage> that were
showstopper for me: a class named Aspect and another name Test.
Those clash with the @AJ "Aspect" annotation, and the JUnit "Test".
It is safe to move those, but they are actually sources for classes
compiled and stored as binary classes under weaver/testdata/bin with a
readme that says there were compiled with Eclipse 2.x for some
testing. So I did not went that far in the refactoring (never tried
Eclipse 2.x actually !) but still had to move them in the
AspectJ5_Development branch.

Further on, Ajc and AjcTestCase relies on the assumption that Eclipse
is compiling stuff to modules/bin/* according to the Eclipse project
settings in the CVS.
This assumption is mirrored with Ant but is a bit annoying when
someone works with another scheme like I do with IDEA, so I have added
my IDEA output folder "modules/_IDE" to those. A bit odd but...
I plan to write a how to for those working with IDEA (may apply to non
Eclipse fans, perhaps rare but..) and willing to work with the code
base.

I am going to get use to Eclipse 3.1 off course but I had show
stoppers so far to deal with @AJ annotations (bug 86452)

Alex

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:31:22 -0800, Wes Isberg <wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Alex -
> 
> You're right - those are our conventions!
> 
> Are there specific source files you'd like to move?
> 
> It is our policy to avoid the default package. One official exception
> is in testsrc code, we require modules/{foo}/testsrc/{foo}Tests.java,
> which does not collide with other modules.  An unofficial exception
> is code that I believe is compiled by a test itself, limited to
> weaver/testsrc (these should perhaps go into weaver/testdata).
> 
> It's also our policy to avoid circular dependencies between modules;
> the ant builder was written to gack on them, as will Eclipse.  I should
> add, however, that if you put any code in modules/{foo}/src/ that requires
> JUnit, eclipse will compile happily but the Ant build will fail, since we
> don't want JUnit dependencies in released code.
> 
> Sorry that we don't seem to have written these down anywhere.
> Please make a note of things that we need to document for new
> developers...
> 
> Wes
> 
> > ------------Original Message------------
> > From: Alexandre Vasseur <avasseur@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Fri, Feb-25-2005 2:11 AM
> > Subject: [aspectj-dev] classes without package
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > It happens that there is many classes with "no package" in the code
> > base, and this can lead to duplicate classes when working with the
> > code base under IDEA, that you cannot configure to have mulitple
> > "projects" (modules in IDEA) due to circular dependancies between each
> > one.
> >
> > I am wondering if we could try to follow a simple convention like
> > modules/xxx/src/<package>
> > modules/xxx/testsrc/<package>  [same package]
> >
> > This conventions seems already in place for most of the code base.
> >
> > Off course, for some very limited cases, it makes sense to have a no
> > package class as test data, but I don't consider it to be the general
> > case.
> >
> > Thoughts ?
> >
> > Alex
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-dev mailing list
> > aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-dev mailing list
> aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev
>