directmemory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Johannes.Lichtenberger" <Johannes.Lichtenber...@uni-konstanz.de>
Subject Re: MemoryBuffer interface
Date Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:22:31 GMT
On 10/24/2012 10:10 PM, Christoph Engelbert wrote:
> Am 24.10.2012 22:08, schrieb Johannes.Lichtenberger:
>> On 10/24/2012 09:39 PM, Christoph Engelbert wrote:
>>> Am 24.10.2012 21:21, schrieb Johannes.Lichtenberger:
>>>> On 10/24/2012 09:03 PM, Christoph Engelbert wrote:
>>>>> Am 24.10.2012 21:01, schrieb Christoph Engelbert:
>>>>>> Am 24.10.2012 21:00, schrieb Olivier Lamy:
>>>>>>> 2012/10/24 Raffaele P. Guidi <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> Really, really good. Well, if all tests pass why not starting
>>>>>>>> pushing the
>>>>>>>> changes to svn? :-)
>>>>>>> +1 :-)
>>>>>> I guess there are no Unsafe unittests at the moment ;-) The other
>>>>>> tests already passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: I think it would be good to use JUnit Parameterized tests that
>>>>> the same test is executed for every available MemoryManager /
>>>>> Allocator.
>>>>
>>>> BTW: This is really great in TestNG using the @DataProvider
>>>> annotation together with @Test(dataProvider = "foo").
>>>>
>>>
>>> JUnit has the same ability using @Parameters
>>> http://www.mkyong.com/unittest/junit-4-tutorial-6-parameterized-test/
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Great, didn't know about this annotation :-)
>>
>> According to [1] from the same guy, however it seems that the
>> TestNG parameters are more powerful (not restricted to primitives).
>>
>
> Not restricted to primitives ;-)
>
>      @Parameters
>      public static Collection<Object[]> data() {
>          return Arrays.asList( new Object[][] {{new
> MemoryManagerServiceImpl<Object>()},{new
> UnsafeMemoryManagerServiceImpl<Object>()}} );
>      }

Ok, thanks ;-)


Mime
View raw message