commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Gregory" <ggreg...@seagullsw.com>
Subject RE: [codec] Binary BIT_n and BITS question.
Date Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:27:30 GMT
Alex,

If you feel like it and have the time, you are welcome to check out the
latest from CVS and submit a patch. Otherwise, I might get to it this
weekend.

Thanks,
Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Karasulu [mailto:aok123@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:41
> To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [codec] Binary BIT_n and BITS question.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:ggregory@seagullsw.com]
> >
> 
> <snip/>
> 
> > the question is, I think, what
> > visibility should these fields have? I see several views, from
strict to
> > lax:
> >
> > (1) Make the fields private, there are implementation details. Let
the
> > unit tests duplicate similar declarations. While duplication is not
OO
> > it ensures that the tests /really/ can make the difference b/w
expected
> > and actual values. After all, if there was a bug in some bit
> > declaration, the unit test might not find it.
> >
> > I think I like (1).
> 
> Yes (1) sounds good to me too.  I like the point you've made
concerning
> expected vs. actual values: if there is a mistake in a Binary BIT_n
> value then the unit test case might be able to catch it presuming the
> testcase does not make the same exact mistake.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message