On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Andrew Stitcher <astitc...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > The reason I want to do this is that I want to move to a testing regime >> > where we can run a specific build and use its install result (with >> > probably a special testing tools install location) to run the subsequent >> > test run. If we are to do this with multiple of the the qpid subtrees >> > together, say c++ and java then it will be confusing if the *-send and >> > *-receive executables have the same name. >> >> I wouldn't object to such an option. >> >> I'd be much less keen on renaming the existing c++ tests though. > > I agree - I tend to regard (somewhat chauvinistically I admit) the c++ > qpid-send and qpid-receive as the default versions!
For what it's worth (and I wouldn't say it's worth much), I'd prefer renaming the C++ ones as well. I think it does a better job of telling the user what they're using, one of several variants of qpid-send or -receive. It would also leave space for introducing a simple wrapper with a parameter similar to the one proposed for qpid-benchmark: "qpid-send --lang python|java|cpp". This would be a nicer way to expose the variants for testing. Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
