qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Stitcher <astitc...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: C++ unit tests, cppunit vs. Boost.Test
Date Thu, 10 May 2007 14:54:24 GMT
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 09:37 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:

> The only thing boost lacks is a shared-library plugin framework. I used
> to think this was a great thing but I fear I was blinded by technology.
> On reflection a collection of separate executables that you can directly
> run individually is actually *better* that a collection of shared libs
> that you can run individually using the DllPluginTester tool!

I'm very glad you said that - recently John Lakos said (on a
presentation at ACCU 2007) that you should have a standalone test
executable per component (component has a specific meaning in his scheme
of things). One of the reasons he cited was that the executable would
let you know the precise set of link time dependencies of the component.
This is important in his ideas as keeping control of component
dependencies is paramount.

Andrew


















Mime
View raw message