My 2c.
The "use python to drive C and Java tests" was a good idea at the time
(because we only had C, Java and Python and python is the most
productive language to write tests in) and has served us well, but we
have outgrown it.
There are two things we need:
- good unit tests for each binding/c
On 19 August 2015 at 13:05, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 19/08/15 12:34 +0100, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>
>> I can see certain benefits to such a separation, mainly for folks
>> interested only in the bindings, but if I'm honest I'm not sure those
>> outweigh the additional complication it seems it ma
ay not be
practical, sadly.
See inline:
- Original Message -
> From: "Flavio Percoco"
> To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:05:10 AM
> Subject: Re: A case in favor of separate repos for language bindings
>
> On 19/08/15 12:34 +
On 19/08/15 12:34 +0100, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I can see certain benefits to such a separation, mainly for folks
interested only in the bindings, but if I'm honest I'm not sure those
outweigh the additional complication it seems it may bring in some of
the other areas.
I think they actually do
I can see certain benefits to such a separation, mainly for folks
interested only in the bindings, but if I'm honest I'm not sure those
outweigh the additional complication it seems it may bring in some of
the other areas.
The python bindings are slightly more interesting than the others due
to be
Greetings,
I'd like to take a chance, now that 0.10 is out, to make a point in
favor of using submodules rather than having all bindings in the same
repository.
I think qpid-proton has reached the point where it's mature enough to
have some of the bindings promoted to having their own repos. Mor
