Return-Path: 
 <commons-dev-return-48117-apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive=jakarta.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 95918 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 19:40:57 -0000
Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12)
  by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 19:40:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 2965 invoked by uid 500); 18 Mar 2004 19:40:40 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2863 invoked by uid 500); 18 Mar 2004 19:40:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:commons-dev-subscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev.jakarta.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2771 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 19:40:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net) (205.152.59.68)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 19:40:37 -0000
Received: from franklin ([68.19.226.169]) by imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with ESMTP
          id <20040318194042.LFBU4834.imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net@franklin>
          for <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>;
          Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:40:42 -0500
From: "Alex Karasulu" <aok123@bellsouth.net>
To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [codec] Binary BIT_n and BITS question.
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:40:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
In-Reply-To: <D1639D06CFBD014F87F3978DA7038B934B6957@ns1017.SSSI.seagull.nl>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Thread-Index: 
 AcQHj1LrULb/fh5oT1yggieijJLXNQAAFWEgADdm8tAAni+6kABaEEQAAAC9WCAABOsyIAAtKRhAAAChQcAAAQO9IA==
Message-Id: <20040318194042.LFBU4834.imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net@franklin>
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

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