qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John O'Hara" <john.r.oh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: C++ unit tests, cppunit vs. Boost.Test
Date Thu, 10 May 2007 16:40:54 GMT
Agree - there's just to much non-repeatability with shared libaries; just
where is LD_LIBRARY_PATH pointing in which shell...

Static linking - Reassuringly Expensive


On 10/05/07, Andrew Stitcher <astitcher@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message