Re: Re: Feedback requested: Impending changes to RunListener

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM, tibord47 <[email protected]> wrote:

> **
>
>
> David, I can confirm that running annotated listener in 4.11 and compiled
> with 4.12 does not throw exception. So the annotation is winner in my eyes.
>
> Regarding the static inner annotation in RunListener, this would mean that
> other classes which will maybe later need the same name of annotation will
> just duplicate again.
>
Remember, this annotation changes the behavior of JUnit will have when
interacting with classes that extend RunListener. It's not simply an
indication that the listener is thread-safe (though your listener would
have to be thread-safe to use this annotation). See my comments in
http://goo.gl/6HBNV to see other reasons why I think a top-level JUnit
ThreadSafe annotation would be problematic

I'm personally not too worried about what might happen if we need to think
about indicating the thread-safety of extension points somewhere else in
JUnit. We could easily support multiple annotations in the future if we
need to, and when that time comes, perhaps JSR-305 will be more mature.

-- Kevin


>
>
> Cheers,
> Tibor
>
> --- In [email protected], Kevin Cooney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:38 AM, David Saff wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, all.
> > >
> > > Kevin, thank you very much for the summary document. I think that a
> > > JUnit-specific annotation, which is not name-confusable with a standard
> > > like @ThreadSafe, seems to be a pretty clear winner. If we feel
> strongly
> > > that it should remain consonant with @ThreadSafe, we could make it a
> static
> > > inner annotation, and reference it as @RunListener.ThreadSafe.
> >
> >
> > I'm personally find with that as long as the JavaDoc for the annotation
> > makes it clear that a RunListener implementation annotated with that
> > interface will be treated differently than one not annotated with that
> > interface when addListener() and removeListener() is called.
> >
> >
> >
> > > That might
> > > also have the advantage of making clear that it's a single-purpose
> > > annotation (I'd rather not, at this point, start speculatively
> figuring out
> > > what other interfaces might try to pun meanings onto a general-purpose
> > > ThreadSafe annotation)
> > >
> > > I'm a little curious about the third-party library implementation.
> Let's
> > > say I write a package FooTest which is compiled against JUnit 4.12,
> and it
> > > contains a FooListener I'd like to mark threadsafe. A client wants to
> use
> > > it with JUnit 4.11 (she knows she won't get the concurrent performance
> > > boost, but wants it to just work). The document seems to assume that if
> > > FooListener has a RunListener.TheadSafe annotation, then our client
> won't
> > > have a problem (unless, likely, she actually tries to instantiate all
> of
> > > the annotations from FooListener in her own code).
> >
> >
> > Correct as of JDK 1.5.0_06. See
> >
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3567413/why-doesnt-a-missing-annotation-cause-a-classnotfoundexception-at-runtime
> >
> > It sounds that if the client wants to write code that extends FooListener
> > then JUnit 4.12 will need to be on the compile-time classpath
> >
> >
> >
> > > However, the document
> > > assumes that declaring a marker interface ThreadSafeRunListener _would_
> > > break the client. Is that true?
> >
> >
> > I believe it would result in a NoClassDefFoundError exception. It should
> be
> > easy to verify.
> >
> > Note that it may be hard to write a library that has a compile-time
> > dependency on JUnit 4.12 while being runtime compatible with 4.11 for
> other
> > reasons.
> >
> > Does FooListener fail at bytecode
> > > verification because the verifier wants to make sure that it
> implements all
> > > of ThreadSafeRunListener's methods?
> > >
> >
> > That would be my guess.
> >
> > -- Kevin
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/