db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mohamed Nufail <nufai...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Code coverage for client.net package
Date Wed, 23 May 2012 02:44:01 GMT
+1

If only such little functionality is utilized, having those two classes is
a waste. The new solution sounds much better.

So shall I proceed with the suggested solution?

Regards,
Nufail.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Bryan Pendleton <bpendleton.derby@gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
> +1
>
> This sounds like a great idea to me. Nufail, what do you think?
>
> thanks,
>
> bryan
>
>


-- 

Mohamed Nufail
Undergraduate,
Department of Computer Science & Engineering,
University of Moratuwa.
Blog: http://www.nufailm.blogspot.com/

Mime
View raw message