I'd tend to leave the names be what they are and adjust my design and environment to them.
Certainly it's a problem when you type 'drain' and the wrong drain runs because of a path. But it seems there will always be the case where you need to test two cpp-receive versions against each other and you are right back to where you are now. If you design for a full absolute path to each executable then it never goes wrong. -C ----- "Jonathan Robie" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "Jonathan Robie" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:28:39 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Rename drain and spout? qpid-python-test .... > > qpid-python-test generally assumes that programs to be executed are on > > the path. > > I wrote some Python unit tests that use drain and spout in three > languages, and test interop. My tests specify the complete path to the > > programs, but this makes installation a little more complex. > > It would be convenient to have different program names that can > coexist > on the path, e.g. > > python-send > python-receive > cpp-send > cpp-receive > java-send > java-receive > > Would renaming these examples in this way have any significant > disadvantages? > > Jonathan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
