Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of nufail56@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4FBC26CF.1040500@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACFR6h=J3sxhEXeL0JOhbCuYRjchBtdDvwbSdVhkmGCivqh3mA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FBB9DA2.20906@gmail.com> <wjo8r4ucgtfv.fsf@oracle.com>
 <4FBC26CF.1040500@gmail.com>
From: Mohamed Nufail <nufail56@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:14:01 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CACFR6h=dWXQh-01mMGn5haLLb4DqKEkg05gN_3wv6q_gmvu+1A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Code coverage for client.net package
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04374a05cda57604c0ab1c48

--f46d04374a05cda57604c0ab1c48
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+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/

--f46d04374a05cda57604c0ab1c48
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1<br><br>If only such little functionality is utilized, having those two c=
lasses is a waste. The new solution sounds much better.<br><br>So shall I p=
roceed with the suggested solution?<br><br>Regards,<br>Nufail.<br><br><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Bryan Pendleton <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bpendleton.derby@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">bpendleton.derb=
y@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div class=3D"im">On 05/22/2012 07:51 AM, Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I&#39;m wondering if it would be more reasonable just to remove the two<br>
classes and make writeUDT() use either java.io.ByteArrayOutputStream or<br>
EncodedInputStream.<u></u>PublicBufferOutputStream instead. The latter clas=
s<br>
already is in the <a href=3D"http://client.net" target=3D"_blank">client.ne=
t</a> package, but it would probably be a good<br>
idea to make it a stand-alone class and not an inner class if we want to<br=
>
reuse it in the Request class.<br>
<br>
That would reduce the code size and increase the percentage covered.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
+1<br>
<br>
This sounds like a great idea to me. Nufail, what do you think?<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
<br>
bryan<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>


=09
=09
=09
=09

<p style=3D"margin-bottom:0in">


=09
=09
=09
=09

</p><font color=3D"#888888"><font size=3D"1"><font face=3D"arial, sans-seri=
f"><font style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif" size=3D"1">Mohamed Nufail=
<br>Undergraduate,<br>Department of Computer Science &amp; Engineering,<br>=
University of Moratuwa.<br>

Blog: <a href=3D"http://www.nufailm.blogspot.com/" target=3D"_blank">http:/=
/www.nufailm.blogspot.com/</a></font><br></font></font></font><p></p>
<br>

--f46d04374a05cda57604c0ab1c48--