db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bryan Pendleton <bpendleton.de...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Code coverage for client.net package
Date Tue, 22 May 2012 23:52:47 GMT
On 05/22/2012 07:51 AM, Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
> I'm wondering if it would be more reasonable just to remove the two
> classes and make writeUDT() use either java.io.ByteArrayOutputStream or
> EncodedInputStream.PublicBufferOutputStream instead. The latter class
> already is in the client.net package, but it would probably be a good
> idea to make it a stand-alone class and not an inner class if we want to
> reuse it in the Request class.
> That would reduce the code size and increase the percentage covered.


This sounds like a great idea to me. Nufail, what do you think?



View raw message