Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 19928 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2006 04:03:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Apr 2006 04:03:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 59145 invoked by uid 500); 27 Apr 2006 04:03:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 59107 invoked by uid 500); 27 Apr 2006 04:03:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 59096 invoked by uid 99); 27 Apr 2006 04:03:29 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:03:29 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS,SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of stepan.mishura@gmail.com designates 66.249.82.205 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.82.205] (HELO xproxy.gmail.com) (66.249.82.205) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:03:28 -0700 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id t16so1133033wxc for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:03:07 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=M2O52r137CniFPo/S9Xp3yMHLhrVjOUdl1GhzEgltsQHW8NNAngL+3VuBsKf5Wqxhf0kUFU0/eS5m9BXNeev4dKbchyyfgER7bvy9qmKbA5CSorbpMeM6BJ/Z5EsJyTtymiDGyZIlZB2ZH0jdNo4AqrnCciwxS8WoyRuAkgYZ/Y= Received: by 10.70.131.6 with SMTP id e6mr1736811wxd; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.32.3 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6e47b64f0604262103kf9343edu13732a9d56338191@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:03:07 +0700 From: "Stepan Mishura" To: harmony-dev Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?[classlib]_Tests_for_seriali?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?zation_=96_which_package,_name=3F?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_28585_1877134.1146110587328" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_28585_1877134.1146110587328 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi, I'd like to discuss naming conventions for serialization tests - does it make sense to separate serialization tests from unit tests? For example, in module security tests for serialization were placed into separate packages: java.security.serialization java.security.cert.serialization java.security.spec.serialization Also it is possible to put tests in the same package but name them in different ways, for example, SomeClassTest.java =96 unit test for SomeClass SerSomeClassTest.java =96 serialization test for SomeClass Or we won't separate serialization tests from unit tests and will test serialization by adding corresponding methods to unit test, for example, public void testSerialization1() public void testSerialization2() public void testSerialization3() public void testSerializationCorrupted() public void testSerializationIllegalValues() Thoughts? Thanks, Stepan Mishura Intel Middleware Products Division ------------------------------------------------------ Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org ------=_Part_28585_1877134.1146110587328--