Re: [Cppunit-devel] Bug or misunderstanding?

[Duane M. <dua...@ma...>]

--- At Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:38:34 +0100, Baptiste Lepilleur wrote:

>>
>> Others that work on CppUnit can speak up for why it is this way. I have
>> long considered this a bug. CppUnit likes calling new() :-). They
>> instiate a new Fixture() for each test case. You will have to work around
>> it somehow.
>
>This is a normal behavior. It provides maximum isolation between each test
>case of the fixture. As far as I know JUnit behave the same way.

There is a chance I missed something, but from my brief review of the
JUnit code and especially the JUnit articles and examples I have read, it
appeared to me that the point of the Fixture was indeed to manage the a
set of tests and not a single test. If it was meant to manage a single
test that what is the point of setUp() and tearDown()? I could just as
easily do these in a constructor or a destructor.

>> CppUnit likes calling new() :-).
>
>What do you mean ?

I find the use of new() to be a liability. It is the leading cause of
memory leaks and object lifetime errors. I have in fact had bugs with
CppUnit where the lifetime of an object was indeed shorter that I had
expected. 

I avoid pointers and unmanaged memory as much as possible. I use
references and shared pointers (from boost) for all of my memory
management. This makes the code safer, more stable, and easier to read
and understand.

I view projects like CppUnit() as "industry examples." Maybe this is too
strong of an expectation, but I would expect to see "best practices" in a
widely used framework like CppUnit. I view memory management as a best
practice.

 ...Duane