Good stuff. I'm trying to look on Jira to see if you have any other outstanding patches that need to be applied, but the site seems to be very slow at the moment. Please remind me if there are any I have missed.
On 2/26/07, Tomas Restrepo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Rupert, > > I have a problem, in that I'm currently trying to make a build of this > for an internal client. As I haven't really looked at this code in > great depth I had to take it on faith that it works and will interop > with the Java (note that I'm not blaming you for this, quite the > opposite as you are doing a lot to fix and improve it, I mean that I'm > relying on the code left behind by Steve Shaw being in working order - > with no docs and little tests and with the Java code having evolved > substantially since he stopped working on the .Net this doesn't seem > likely...). No interop tests means that I had to write some on friday > and then find out that it doesn't work. > > An 'experimental patch' at the last moment before putting out a build > seems a bit hairy! I completely understand your dilemma and were I in your shoes, I'd say the same thing :) We might as well be brutally honest here, and say that the .NET client isn't really in a very good spot right now. It has fallen way behind the development of the corresponding java code and there is a lot unimplemented (or half implemented) in there. In fact, I'll be as bold to say that a lot there doesn't even work even if both ends were the .NET client! It also lacks a lot in unit and integration tests (I once ran the basic tests under coverage to discover just about 10% of the code was getting exercised by the tests... not a good place to be!). It doesn't quite help the fact that there is a lot more people contributing to the Java code than to the .NET code for now... I'm fairly confident in the code I wrote this weekend in the sense that as I said it has fairly good coverage and that once I plugged it into the main code (which took a bit of time because of the naming changes), a lot worked "right away". One of the reasons I said it was experimental is not only that I just wrote the code this weekend, but also the fact that I haven't tested all possible types yet in the message headers. I was kind of planning to do that today. But, I can say for sure that right now at least custom integer headers are going through between the Java and .NET clients which I think it's a lot to say given the state of things. And I might as well add that indeed there is a *lot* more changes needed besides the Buffer stuff. I agree I *should've* caught some of these when I did the base field-table changes patch, and it was pretty unfortunate that I didn't :( Another reason I say it is experimental is that I haven't done yet a few of the "niceties", like getting the monodevelop project files up to date with all the changes. I'm going to create a new JIRA for the patch and link it to the original fieldtable type jira and upload the current patch. At least give it a quick try and let me know what you think. Tomas Restrepo [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/
