On October 19, 2010, Robert Collins wrote: > You uncopied the list? intentional? >
It wasn't. > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Francis J. Lacoste > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On October 18, 2010, Robert Collins wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Francis J. Lacoste > >> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I don't know, but I'd guess that it's paranoia inspired by the odd > >> >> way layers handle inheritance. > >> > > >> > Yes, that's the case. If you use it as a mixin, it gets taken into > >> > account for the layer running order. > >> > >> Why is that a problem though? > > > > It might not be anymore. When this class was first in existence, it was > > defined as a mixin and all the of the common functionality was actually > > implemented in the layer protocol (setUp, tearDown, testSetUp, > > testTearDown). Which of course blows up when used as a mixin (because > > setUp will only be called once, not once per layer that use the mixin). > > > > Now that all the functionality is in non-layer protocol, it's probably > > safe again to use as a mixin. > > But its a single instance, so it can't be setup twice *anyway*, which > makes this make little sense. > I think the intent was to still share the appserver as a fixture. I agree that making this an instance would make more sense. -- Francis J. Lacoste [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
