Discussions around software architecture mainly in the context of FW/1 and MVC
Have a great day!
I've done unit testing in python and CF and have used the "tests" directory, but I'm seeing a couple of ways to do it in Java...
projectRoot/src and projectRoot/tests vs. projectRoot/src/main and projectRoot/src/tests
I didn't know if one way was better than the other. We're going to be (eventually) bring CI into the mix also, so I want to make sure that we're starting on the right foot.
I'm not even sure if devs are unit testing their code yet as I'm waiting on SVN access (I'm former dev/QA automation side of things) so it may not even be my decision, but wanted to get an opinion from someone to have some backing on a good way to go forward if we don't do it currently.
This makes sense once you move away from source-based deployments to build/compile deployments. In the former, you can easily just deploy the src tree. In the latter, it's all source but you choose to compile (and package) just the "main" part of your source code, not all of it.
Maven makes Ant seem like fun. At least with Gradle, you don’t have to <program><in html="as a language"/></program>
I’m working on standardizing some of our naming conventions. Within our services, we frequently have
get( id ) and check( id ) methods. The former returns a populated bean, the latter a boolean. There may also be convenience methods, like getByName( name ) or getDraft( id ). Under the hood, they all utilize a private method, which returns the result of a query, based on the parameters. I’m trying to name that private method. I initially used getByProperty( id ), but it bothers me that the name doesn’t differentiate it from related public methods that return objects.
So my question is, should that method name somehow indicate that it is private and that its return type is different?
We don’t have an internal private method because we essentially use the
find… function passing the PK as the only property (and just taking the first element of the array as the data we need internally).
and I suppose the find method wouldn’t need to be private… I’ll have to think about that a little more.
Awesome. Thanks @seancorfield
it gets converted, to a struct/array, or pushed into an object
I've successfully converted our dev builds from using the ant script plus ivy to a completely gradle build file. I know there's quite a few more tweaks I need to do it, but it's been a great start.
I've added it to a Jenkins build job, added in PMD, jacoco (that was a little involved as I was doing something incorrectly which was causing me to get no coverage results), and FindBugs.
If you don't mind, I do have a question about dependency management within the Java world (and using Gradle to overcome that).
I'm still relatively new to the Java world (outside of minor interactions from CF previously), but I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of how things should work :). The devs were contending that they wanted to get rid of the old Ivy file (which I'm fine with as I got the gradle file working instead) and said that they manage their jar files by just adding them to the project. Now, of course, this seems completely wrong to me and sounds like they just couldn't figure out how to handle the dependencies correctly that should be involved in their project and just decided "I'll just add the file I need to my libs directory" and remove the other file.
Is there a reason that they would need to manage the jar files outside of the build script? Seems like that is the whole reason it is there, and smart people have created it that way and are (hopefully successfully) using it in their projects. I would imagine if things had been done incorrectly in how certain jar files were created initially or they weren't managing their dependencies correctly in their project that they may run into issues, but it seemed like they just were trying to blow smoke, but again, I could be completely off as I am new to this Java world.
By all means have a local managed repository but they should not be "part of the project" -- that's silly.
Ok, that's good to hear then. I don't mind being proved to be wrong about something, or incorrect in my assertion, as long as they're coming from a solid base. I'll continue driving towards them using the build script, which should make all of our lives easier. The other frustrating part now is the lack of drive on their part to have even looked into this type of solution previously. It's not like this is anything new, and it must have been painful to have to implement this manually in the past every time, and no one took the initiative to look into something to try to ease the process. And now having to convince people "hey this is a good idea...give it a try".