commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [math] Binary or text resource files?
Date Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:46:08 GMT
On 8/29/12 8:22 PM, S├ębastien Brisard wrote:
> Hi,
> testing of special functions involves comparing actual values returned
> by CM with expected values as computed with an arbitrary precision
> software (I use Maxima [1] for this purpose). As I intend these tests
> to be assesments of the overall accuracy of our implementations, the
> number of test values is quite large. For the time being, I've inlined
> the reference values in double[][] arrays, in the test classes. This
> clutters the code, and I will move these reference values to resource
> files.
> In order to limit the size of these files, I'm considering binary
> files, the obvious drawback being the lack of readability (for those
> of us who haven't entered the Matrix yet).
> So what I would propose to add a readme.txt file in the same resource
> file directory, where the content of each binary file would be
> detailed.
> Would you object to that?
> I'm thinking of reserving the *.dat extension to these binary files.
> This would entail renaming a few resource files from *.dat (I had
> myself introduced in the optimization.general package) to *.txt. Is
> that OK?

Unless the files are really huge, I think its better to stick with
text files, but as long as you include the readme and keep it up to
date, I would be OK with this.  We have a lot of test files in
src/test/resources for various purposes now.  I like the ones in
/stat because they include documentation about where they came from
/ what they mean in the files themselves. 

> Thanks for your advice,
> S├ębastien
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message