----- Original Message ----- From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [Commons] Testing "sub-components"
> Leading to: > > Test: TestObject, TestSerialization, ... ??? I'm not _positive_ what you mean here. I think you're implying that there be a "Test" component where all these tests live. I'm not sure that's a good idea; I think it's best if they be companion classes to each component, _perhaps_ packaged in the same jar as the component itself. Actually, I think the names below, which I drew from the current Collections test classes, are slightly misleading. I think there should be a "TestObject" test case, which tests the methods of Object. For most other tasks, we probably want a library of custom asserts, rather than actual test cases. That seems to be the only reasonable course, since interfaces can be combined in any number of ways. - Morgan > On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Daniel Rall wrote: > > > "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Right now, I'm not positive that there would be enough common operations to > > > make it worthwhile, but I think it's worth considering. Perhaps: > > > > > > Lang: TestObject, ? > > > IO: TestSerialization, ? > > > Collections: TestMap, TestCollection, TestList, ? > > > > A promising idea. Any reason not to include the more > > generic/re-usable classes in the main JAR? > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
