Stepan Mishura wrote:
On 8/10/06, Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> BufferOverflowException());
>> >
>> >
>> > But then you have to move generated file to the appropriate place by
>> hands.
>> > Is this convenient?
>> >
>>
>> Hi Stepan,
>>
>> IMO, most ser file should be put i
On 8/10/06, Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> BufferOverflowException());
>> >
>> >
>> > But then you have to move generated file to the appropriate place by
>> hands.
>> > Is this convenient?
>> >
>>
>> Hi Stepan,
>>
>> IMO, most ser file should be put into a certain directory
Stepan Mishura wrote:
BufferOverflowException());
>
>
> But then you have to move generated file to the appropriate place by
hands.
> Is this convenient?
>
Hi Stepan,
IMO, most ser file should be put into a certain directory, so the
the appropriate directory is always there.
I'd like
On 8/10/06, Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> On 8/10/06, Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
>>
>> Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> > Hi Jimmy,
>> >
>> > I looked into SerializationTester - it creates golden file if it
failed
>> to
>> > find required file. But IMO generating ser-files should be done
>> e
Stepan Mishura wrote:
On 8/10/06, Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> I looked into SerializationTester - it creates golden file if it failed
to
> find required file. But IMO generating ser-files should be done
explicitly.
> And I like unambiguity in behaviour. So if the
On 8/10/06, Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> I looked into SerializationTester - it creates golden file if it failed
to
> find required file. But IMO generating ser-files should be done
explicitly.
> And I like unambiguity in behaviour. So if there is no ser-file a tes
Stepan Mishura wrote:
Hi Jimmy,
I looked into SerializationTester - it creates golden file if it failed to
find required file. But IMO generating ser-files should be done explicitly.
And I like unambiguity in behaviour. So if there is no ser-file a test
should just fail reporting that there is n
On 8/8/06, Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> I expect that we agreed to use new serialization framework for new
tests.
> But I see that people continue develop tests for serialization using the
> old
> framework (i.e. SerializationTester).
>
> Could you tell me why you
Yes, it is possible to mark it as Deprecated but IMHO this won't encourage
people quickly migrate to the new framework. So it is better to fix tests
and delete the old version. I'll try to find time to fix such tests. And I
like to ask everybody: please don't develop new serialization tests using
Hi Jimmy,
I looked into SerializationTester - it creates golden file if it failed to
find required file. But IMO generating ser-files should be done explicitly.
And I like unambiguity in behaviour. So if there is no ser-file a test
should just fail reporting that there is no required file.
So I'
Why not mark the old one as Deprecated, or better still fix up the
references to the old version and delete it.
Regards,
Tim
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> I expect that we agreed to use new serialization framework for new tests.
> But I see that people continue develop tests for serializ
On 8/8/06, Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> I expect that we agreed to use new serialization framework for new
tests.
> But I see that people continue develop tests for serialization using the
> old
> framework (i.e. SerializationTester).
>
> Could you tell me why you
Stepan Mishura wrote:
Hi Jimmy,
I expect that we agreed to use new serialization framework for new tests.
But I see that people continue develop tests for serialization using the
old
framework (i.e. SerializationTester).
Could you tell me why you prefer the old framework? Is the new framework
13 matches
Mail list logo
