On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 15:25, Archit Shah wrote: > Thanks for the reply. I have a few questions below. > > C. Brian Jones wrote: > >>If there is concern about the dependency on asm, I am open to > >>suggestions for an alternate bytecode generating facility. I understand > >>there is a gnu.bytecode in kawa [3]. I'm perfectly happy to switch from > >>asm to something else if it will ease adoption of my code. > > > > > > Yes, that's available as well. Per is open to improving (accepting > > patches for) gnu.bytecode as needed. > > I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it is ok for me to use asm? > Are you saying it is preferable for me to switch to gnu.bytecode?
There are no issues with using asm. I like asm as well and the license is acceptable. > > I haven't added the code to cp-tools yet, but I've been writing junit > > tests for javap. You might consider doing the same for rmic. > > Unit testing rmic is a bit problematic. I've been running end to end > tests that with a client that download stubs and invokes remote methods. > This is not trivially junit-able because it requires at least 2 separate > processes with separate classpaths. I'don't really have a good idea for > more lightweight testing of rmic. Any ideas on this front are appreciated. End-to-end rmi testing would be more difficult but not impossible. For things like j2ee other unit testing frameworks were developed to make it easier. I don't know if there is anything for generic rmi testing. > PS Any reason you've replied off-list? Must have made a mistake and used reply instead of reply all. -- Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
