Re: [Cppunit-devel] include directory clean-up

[Steve M. R. <ste...@vi...>]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 04:39:41PM +0200, Baptiste Lepilleur wrote:

> We had some talk about the namespace a while ago, and questions
> about why so many stuffs were in the "extensions" directory. I think
> the current directory orgnization in "include" can be confusing.

I agree with this sentiment.  It confuses me :-)

Unfortunately, I have more questions than answers...

I think that drafting an outline of the library will help in
organizing the directory structure (and possibly the namespace
structure).  Questions that I have, for example: what is the
difference between an "extension" and a "helper"?  What is the "core"
of the framework, anyway?

I'd like to start documenting the classes better.  I don't understand
it well enough, yet, though.  If we can get some discussion going
here, I will add the documentation strings.  I expect this process
will clarify class relationships and groupings will emerge,
facilitating directory/namespace structuring.

For example, we can start with the core classes such as Test,
TestCase, TestCaller, TestSuite.  The latter three are each a subclass
of Test, which is pure virtual.  Is it fair to say, then, that
Test is an "interface" class?  What are the intended semantics
of its methods: run(), countTestCases(), toString() and getName()?
We just had some questions on whether the latter two should be
merged.  I don't think a conclusion was reached.


>   textui/: text based TestRunner
>     TestRunner.h  (within the CppUnit::TextUi namespace, was TextTestRunner.h)
>   mfcui/: MFC based TestRunner
>     TestRunner.h  (within the CppUnit::MfcUi namsepace, was 
> msvc6/TestRunner/TestRunner.h )

Here, the directory structure is intended to mirror the namespace
structure, right?  I wonder what is intended to be in the
CppUnit::<UI> namespace.  Currently, there is only TestRunner; are
more classes envisioned?  If not, we'd be creating multiple <UI>
namespaces with a single member each.  That doesn't sound right.  Why
not create a TestRunner base class, with specializations for each UI?


-Steve

-- 
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants