[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1
From: |
Giulio Cesare Solaroli |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1 |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:26:59 +0100 |
On Thursday, Mar 27, 2003, at 09:43 Europe/Rome, David Ayers wrote:
Giulio Cesare Solaroli wrote:
On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 22:53 Europe/Rome, Stéphane Corthésy
wrote:
GDL2 won't have enough test cases, despite David's efforts, so if we
can get some more tests using OCUnit, that would benefit all.
Yes, this is absolutly correct. Right now the test cases merely cover
single classes and thier API and currently only include some EOControl
classes (Well also some adaptor and EOModel tests, but they need to be
revisited). Also a lot of the tests are currently still "out of
context". This should change over time, but for a more exhaustive
testing, additional testing frameworks such as yours can only help us.
If I remember correctly, the only issue with OCUnit based code is
that, despite of that fact that it is based on free (as in speech)
software, it is not a GNU package, and that was why base our testing
on guile eventhough it is sometimes rather akward to handle.
I think it would be great if you would contribute your extensions to
the FSF and you could maintain it in the GNUstep repository though (if
I interpreted you correctly).
I have no problem at all to contribute the code to FSF, but there are
some issues that must be resolved:
- our frameworks use some of the Omni frameworks; before committing
everything to the FSF this dependency must be removed; this should not
be a huge problem, but must be investigated;
- some code snips have been taken from mailing-list messages; I have
asked the original authors an informal permission when we did the first
submission to SourceForge, but I think an further check should be done
before giving the copyright to FSF (all the authors are cited in the
source files);
- we subclass OCUnit classes so Sente too must contribute its code to
FSF for complete integration.
This should be all that's needed.
By the way, inside our frameworks there is also a prototype for a
Log4OC implementation; Mirko Viviani has done it upon our request. It's
still a prototype, but I think somebody could be interested in it too.
If Mirko agrees, this would be readily available for inclusion in the
GNUStep project as it only rely on libxml.
Giulio Cesare
- RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/12
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Manuel Guesdon, 2003/03/12
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/12
- Re[2]: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Manuel Guesdon, 2003/03/13
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Giulio Cesare Solaroli, 2003/03/26
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/26
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Stéphane Corthésy, 2003/03/26
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Giulio Cesare Solaroli, 2003/03/26
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/27
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1,
Giulio Cesare Solaroli <=
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/27
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Adam Fedor, 2003/03/27
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/27
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Marco Scheurer, 2003/03/27
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/27
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Marco Scheurer, 2003/03/27