No thought, my head is filled with bone. No brain there. ... Ideally, the best option would be to have the two drivers, and two separate test sets. This way we could ensure that both drivers work at their best (since I presume that people still use System.Data.SQLite). We did the same thing for Oracle: there are two tests sets, one for MS driver, the other for Oracle ODP drivers. And this is necessary.
Pascal. jabber/gtalk: [email protected] msn: [email protected] On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 22:46, Jonathan Pryor <[email protected]> wrote: > Would there be any complaints against changing the SQLite provider from > System.Data.SQLite.DLL (mixed mode assembly) to Mono.Data.Sqlite.dll > (managed assembly) + sqlite3.dll (native assembly)? > > The reason would be for simplicity: System.Data.SQLite can't work on Linux > (mixed mode assemblies aren't supported), while Mono.Data.Sqlite does, and > this would allow me to more easily run SQLite tests on Windows and Linux. > > The downside is that behavior isn't identical, for reasons I haven't > explored. When running against System.Data.SQLite, 413 tests run and 149 > fail. Against Mono.Data.Sqlite, 413 run but 167 fail. > > Such a migration would be fairly easy -- a search & replace hitting ~5 > files, adding Mono.Data.Sqlite.dll and sqlite3.dll to the lib directory, > and adding an assembly reference to the Sqlite test project to > Mono.Data.Sqlite. > > Thoughts? > > - Jon > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DbLinq" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dblinq?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
