| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unit testing |
| Date: | 2004-10-11 14:02:36 |
| Message-ID: | 416A927C.7080706@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 2. Won't dissolving away "static" cause naming conflicts?
It might, yes. Those can be resolved, I think. I don't see a good reason
why function names can't be unique across the source tree; at the very
least, it means less irritation for anyone using tags.
> 3. Unit testing frameworks are best suited to component-based
> architectures, ISTM. I'm not sure that one would fit Postgres very well.
Can you elaborate?
> Retrofitting unit testing is a lot harder than starting out doing it
> from day 1.
Granted, but I don't think that implies that retrofitting isn't worth
the effort.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-11 14:43:53 | Re: Unit testing |
| Previous Message | Reini Urban | 2004-10-11 13:58:09 | Re: OT moving from MS SQL to PostgreSQL |