Sorry for the late feedback... +1 to renaming qpid-cpp-benchmark to qpid-benchmark. I think moving qpid-benchmark into qpid/tools makes sense - it is a 'tool', even if it is not exactly a management tool. :)
Is the intent also to install qpid-benchmark as part of the tool install, like qpid-route? I'd be in favor of that, but that would require making the qpid-send/receive part of the tool install also. Since qpid-send.cpp/qpid-receive.cpp live in qpid/cpp/src/tests, then should the python variants of those tools live in qpid/python/tests - for consistency? -K ----- Original Message ----- > On 07/09/2012 02:58 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 10:57:51AM +0100, Gordon Sim wrote: > >> (iii) Should we move the qpid-[cpp]-benchmark script out of the > >> c++ > >> tree? This would be logically more consistent I think, e.g. it > >> could > >> go under extras? (It could go under tools, but we may want to > >> distinguish between management tools and test utilities). > > > > +1 as well. We could collect all performance tests there rather > > than > > having them (potentially) peppered in different directories. > > The c++ build's automated tests rely on qpid-send and qpid-receive > (but > not on the qpid-cpp-benchmark script). I think leaving the c++ > versions > in the c++ tree makes sense. Relocating the script that drives them > (and/or the python versions) was what I was talking about here. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
