Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #31674 > unrolled thread

API vc MVC

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  API vc MVC Leonan Luppi <leonan.luppi@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 19:04 -0700
    Re: API vc MVC Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2015-05-12 08:09 +0200
      Re: API vc MVC Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-27 22:36 -0400
    Re: API vc MVC Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-27 22:40 -0400
      Re: API vc MVC Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-28 11:55 +0800
        Re: API vc MVC Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-28 18:56 -0400
          Re: API vc MVC Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-29 07:03 +0800
            Re: API vc MVC Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-29 08:10 +0800
              Re: API vc MVC Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-30 22:43 -0400
            Re: API vc MVC e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-07-29 05:14 -0700
              Re: API vc MVC Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 16:30 +0100
                Re: API vc MVC Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-30 05:46 +0800
                  Re: API vc MVC Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-30 22:56 -0400
                Re: API vc MVC Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-30 22:53 -0400
                  Re: API vc MVC Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2015-07-31 15:10 +0200
                    Re: API vc MVC Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2015-07-31 15:12 +0200
                      Re: API vc MVC Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-01 09:04 +0800
                    Re: API vc MVC Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-31 19:34 -0400
                      Re: API vc MVC Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 05:39 +0100
                        Re: API vc MVC Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-01 10:13 +0000
                          Re: API vc MVC Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 21:54 +0100
                            Re: API vc MVC Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-01 22:49 +0000
                              Re: API vc MVC Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 07:57 +0100
                                Re: API vc MVC Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-02 07:49 +0000
                                  Re: API vc MVC Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 09:28 +0100
              Re: API vc MVC Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-30 22:45 -0400
                Re: API vc MVC e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-07-31 05:31 -0700
            Re: API vc MVC Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-30 22:41 -0400
          Re: API vc MVC Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 16:24 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#31674 — API vc MVC

Hello everybody,

I have a sad doubt about this subject's. Today what is better?

Use MVC Pattern and consuming request to load my view or just create an API which any client can access (my environment, my front-end will be AngularJS or any javascript MV* framework). I mean what can be more scalable, performatic?


Regards.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#31675

On Mon, 11 May 2015 19:04:27 -0700 (PDT), Leonan Luppi wrote:

> I have a sad doubt about this subject's. Today what is better?

> Use MVC Pattern and consuming request to load my view or just create an API which any client can access (my environment, my front-end will be AngularJS or any javascript MV* framework). I mean what can be more scalable, performatic?

What is better, a screwdriver or the colour blue ? Your question makes no
sense, the comparison it nonsensical, and you could even simply combine the
two.

Neither MVC nor an API have any inherent properties when it comes to
scalability either.

Liebe Gruesse,
		Joerg

-- 
Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider
ungelesen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32174

On 5/12/2015 2:09 AM, Joerg Meier wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 19:04:27 -0700 (PDT), Leonan Luppi wrote:
>
>> I have a sad doubt about this subject's. Today what is better?
>
>> Use MVC Pattern and consuming request to load my view or just
>> create an API which any client can access (my environment, my
>> front-end will be AngularJS or any javascript MV* framework). I
>> mean what can be more scalable, performatic?
>
> What is better, a screwdriver or the colour blue ? Your question
> makes no sense, the comparison it nonsensical, and you could even
> simply combine the two.

If looking at the strict basic definitions of MVC and API then you are
100% correct.

But if you use the terms in the more informal way that are common
among web developers then the question makes perfect sense - and are
in fact a question most Java web developers are considering these
days.

MVC = server side HTML generation using Java MVC web framework like
Struts, Spring MVC and to some extent JSF.

API = JavaScript application running client side (using AngularJS
or similar framework, could be a single page application) talking
to server side API which in Java typical would be JAX-RS based.

Very standard choice.

If you were in the .NET world then you would chose between
ASP.NET MVC and ASP.NET Web API.

> Neither MVC nor an API have any inherent properties when it comes to
> scalability either.

That is true.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32175

On 5/11/2015 10:04 PM, Leonan Luppi wrote:
> I have a sad doubt about this subject's. Today what is better?
>
> Use MVC Pattern and consuming request to load my view or just create
> an API which any client can access (my environment, my front-end will
> be AngularJS or any javascript MV* framework). I mean what can be
> more scalable, performatic?

I would go for the JavaScript application and JAX-RS web services
server side.

Technically I think it will become a maintenance nightmare for
the client side code, but the reality is that this is the way
the industry is going, so this is the solution that all the young
developers you hire the next 10 years will know.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32176

On 7/28/2015 10:40 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/11/2015 10:04 PM, Leonan Luppi wrote:
>> I have a sad doubt about this subject's. Today what is better?
>>
>> Use MVC Pattern and consuming request to load my view or just create
>> an API which any client can access (my environment, my front-end will
>> be AngularJS or any javascript MV* framework). I mean what can be
>> more scalable, performatic?
>
> I would go for the JavaScript application and JAX-RS web services
> server side.
>
> Technically I think it will become a maintenance nightmare for
> the client side code, but the reality is that this is the way
> the industry is going, so this is the solution that all the young
> developers you hire the next 10 years will know.
>
> Arne
>
I (and most of the currently coding world) agrees with Arne.

Except WRT his other reply: -
[API = JavaScript application running client side (using AngularJS
or similar framework, could be a single page application) talking
to server side API which in Java typical would be JAX-RS based.]

Drop this bit: -  (using AngularJS
or similar framework, could be a single page application)!!!

AngularJS, jQuery, BootStrap yada, yada, yadda, are just for JAVA and C# 
programmers who can't code Javascript and are afraid to try or incapable 
of learning something new,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32185

On 7/27/2015 11:55 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 7/28/2015 10:40 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/11/2015 10:04 PM, Leonan Luppi wrote:
>>> I have a sad doubt about this subject's. Today what is better?
>>>
>>> Use MVC Pattern and consuming request to load my view or just create
>>> an API which any client can access (my environment, my front-end will
>>> be AngularJS or any javascript MV* framework). I mean what can be
>>> more scalable, performatic?
>>
>> I would go for the JavaScript application and JAX-RS web services
>> server side.
>>
>> Technically I think it will become a maintenance nightmare for
>> the client side code, but the reality is that this is the way
>> the industry is going, so this is the solution that all the young
>> developers you hire the next 10 years will know.

> I (and most of the currently coding world) agrees with Arne.
>
> Except WRT his other reply: -
> [API = JavaScript application running client side (using AngularJS
> or similar framework, could be a single page application) talking
> to server side API which in Java typical would be JAX-RS based.]
>
> Drop this bit: -  (using AngularJS
> or similar framework, could be a single page application)!!!
>
> AngularJS, jQuery, BootStrap yada, yada, yadda, are just for JAVA and C#
> programmers who can't code Javascript and are afraid to try or incapable
> of learning something new,

Do you also write your own web server, your own OS and
build your own hardware?

:-)

No need to spend time doing something that other have done for you.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32187

On 7/29/2015 6:56 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> Do you also write your own web server, your own OS and
> build your own hardware?
>
> :-)
>
> No need to spend time doing something that other have done for you.

C'mon Arne mate you know that's non-sequitur. The cost of using crap 
like jQuery is it's inefficient, restrictive, and can't work with new 
HTML5 features such a worker-threads. Support for this plethora of 
libraries is iffy at best and why are you recommending using anything 
other than what Microsoft is paying for and overtly supporting?

But as Dirty Harry used to say 'A man's gotta know his limitations." and 
most Java and C# people are completely crap at Javascript so you could 
well be right :-(

But YES I do not want to reinvent the wheel so please give me a simple 
Controller factory that has a List of pre-primed controllers front-ended 
by a thread-safe Singleton that will new-up additional controller 
instances when the list is empty. Cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32189

On 7/29/2015 7:03 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>
> C'mon Arne mate you know that's non-sequitur. The cost of using crap
> like jQuery is it's inefficient, restrictive, and can't work with new
> HTML5 features such a worker-threads. Support for this plethora of
> libraries is iffy at best and why are you recommending using anything
> other than what Microsoft is paying for and overtly supporting?
>
> But as Dirty Harry used to say 'A man's gotta know his limitations." and
> most Java and C# people are completely crap at Javascript so you could
> well be right :-(
>
> But YES I do not want to reinvent the wheel so please give me a simple
> Controller factory that has a List of pre-primed controllers front-ended
> by a thread-safe Singleton that will new-up additional controller
> instances when the list is empty. Cheers
>
>
>

Just say NO! to Cargo Cult development: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32226

On 7/28/2015 8:10 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 7/29/2015 7:03 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> C'mon Arne mate you know that's non-sequitur. The cost of using crap
>> like jQuery is it's inefficient, restrictive, and can't work with new
>> HTML5 features such a worker-threads. Support for this plethora of
>> libraries is iffy at best and why are you recommending using anything
>> other than what Microsoft is paying for and overtly supporting?

> Just say NO! to Cargo Cult development: -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming

There is no need to include jQuery if you don't use it seriously.

But sites do.

So it does not really apply.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32193

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:04:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Maher wrote:
> C'mon Arne mate you know that's non-sequitur. The cost of using crap 
> like jQuery is it's inefficient, restrictive, and can't work with new 
> HTML5 features such a worker-threads. Support for this plethora of 
> libraries is iffy at best and why are you recommending using anything 
> other than what Microsoft is paying for and overtly supporting?
> 
> But as Dirty Harry used to say 'A man's gotta know his limitations." and 
> most Java and C# people are completely crap at Javascript so you could 
> well be right :-(
> 
> But YES I do not want to reinvent the wheel so please give me a simple 
> Controller factory that has a List of pre-primed controllers front-ended 
> by a thread-safe Singleton that will new-up additional controller 
> instances when the list is empty. Cheers

I interviewed for a job once, they were only looking for someone who knows jQuery, so maybe a good thing I didn't get it.  As far as I know our web site just uses html, javascript, php.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32197

On 29/07/2015 13:14, e.d.programmer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:04:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Maher wrote:

> I interviewed for a job once, they were only looking for someone who knows jQuery, so maybe a good thing I didn't get it.
> As far as I know our web site just uses html, javascript, php.

I looked at JQuery once, it's effectively like learning a framework and 
I don't do that if I can possibly avoid it.

I was lurking on an IRC channel once and some herbert was complaining 
that he didn't really understand SQL ... the solution recommended by a 
channel admin? Use Hibernate. I remonstrated with the said admin that 
that was a *really stupid* suggestion and was promptly binned :-)

asshat.


-- 
Laughing Spam Fritter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32199

On 7/29/2015 11:30 PM, Eternal Hope wrote:
> I was lurking on an IRC channel once and some herbert was complaining
> that he didn't really understand SQL ... the solution recommended by a
> channel admin? Use Hibernate. I remonstrated with the said admin that
> that was a *really stupid* suggestion and was promptly binned :-)
>
> asshat.
>
>

Yes, I hear you! I am fucking surrounded by them :-(

"How do I get all those columny things into an Object?" Arrgh!

You're lucky your with Java. Join the wanker c# crowd and the SQL haters 
throw LINQ at you :-(

"But Lambdas make so much more sense than a well formed English like 
relational SELECT" Aargh!

And once again Arne doesn't care about performance 'cos he never looks 
under the hood at the shit SQL generated by LINQ.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32229

On 7/29/2015 5:46 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 7/29/2015 11:30 PM, Eternal Hope wrote:
>> I was lurking on an IRC channel once and some herbert was complaining
>> that he didn't really understand SQL ... the solution recommended by a
>> channel admin? Use Hibernate. I remonstrated with the said admin that
>> that was a *really stupid* suggestion and was promptly binned :-)
>>
>> asshat.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I hear you! I am fucking surrounded by them :-(
>
> "How do I get all those columny things into an Object?" Arrgh!
>
> You're lucky your with Java. Join the wanker c# crowd and the SQL haters
> throw LINQ at you :-(

In Java we use EJBQL, HQL and JPQL.

Not that different.

> And once again Arne doesn't care about performance 'cos he never looks
> under the hood at the shit SQL generated by LINQ.

Actually I always look at the SQL generated by ORM's.

Whether it be Java Hibernate, Java JPA with Hibernate provider,
.NET EF or .NET NHibernate.

With a little carefulness the SQL will be as good as handwritten.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32228

On 7/29/2015 11:30 AM, Eternal Hope wrote:
> On 29/07/2015 13:14, e.d.programmer@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:04:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Maher wrote:
>
>> I interviewed for a job once, they were only looking for someone who
>> knows jQuery, so maybe a good thing I didn't get it.
>> As far as I know our web site just uses html, javascript, php.
>
> I looked at JQuery once, it's effectively like learning a framework and
> I don't do that if I can possibly avoid it.

I would say that it is very difficult to do any serious programming
without a framework today.

Java programming is full of them.

> I was lurking on an IRC channel once and some herbert was complaining
> that he didn't really understand SQL ... the solution recommended by a
> channel admin? Use Hibernate. I remonstrated with the said admin that
> that was a *really stupid* suggestion and was promptly binned :-)

I can not see any reason to ban you.

The suggestion was perfectly valid though. You can do a lot of stuff
with Hibernate without writing any SQL.

It is even possible to do very basic CRUD without HQL (or JPQL).

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32231

On 07/31/2015 04:53 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/29/2015 11:30 AM, Eternal Hope wrote:
>> On 29/07/2015 13:14, e.d.programmer@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:04:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Maher wrote:
>>
>>> I interviewed for a job once, they were only looking for someone who
>>> knows jQuery, so maybe a good thing I didn't get it.
>>> As far as I know our web site just uses html, javascript, php.
>>
>> I looked at JQuery once, it's effectively like learning a framework and
>> I don't do that if I can possibly avoid it.
>
> I would say that it is very difficult to do any serious programming
> without a framework today.
>

Strongly disagree.

> Java programming is full of them.

Totally agree.

The contemporary Java world is one of cargo cult programmers. To get 
even the tiniest stupid project going typical Java programmers throw 
Spring/*, Hibernate/JPA, Maven, GWT, JSF and at least a couple of test 
frameworks on a big pile and start rolling around in them screaming 
"agile" and "devops" from the top of their longs.

Unfortunately management follows along blindly which makes the lists of 
requirements for new programmers grow to ridiculous length and detail. 
Which in turns makes the new programmers believe they need to know and 
use all these frameworks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32232

On 07/31/2015 03:10 PM, Silvio wrote:
> On 07/31/2015 04:53 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/29/2015 11:30 AM, Eternal Hope wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2015 13:14, e.d.programmer@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:04:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>
>>>> I interviewed for a job once, they were only looking for someone who
>>>> knows jQuery, so maybe a good thing I didn't get it.
>>>> As far as I know our web site just uses html, javascript, php.
>>>
>>> I looked at JQuery once, it's effectively like learning a framework and
>>> I don't do that if I can possibly avoid it.
>>
>> I would say that it is very difficult to do any serious programming
>> without a framework today.
>>
>
> Strongly disagree.
>
>> Java programming is full of them.
>
> Totally agree.
>
> The contemporary Java world is one of cargo cult programmers. To get
> even the tiniest stupid project going typical Java programmers throw
> Spring/*, Hibernate/JPA, Maven, GWT, JSF and at least a couple of test
> frameworks on a big pile and start rolling around in them screaming
> "agile" and "devops" from the top of their longs.
>
> Unfortunately management follows along blindly which makes the lists of
> requirements for new programmers grow to ridiculous length and detail.
> Which in turns makes the new programmers believe they need to know and
> use all these frameworks.

lungs...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32235

On 7/31/2015 9:12 PM, Silvio wrote:
  use all these frameworks.
>
> lungs...

Understood the first time and the rest was definitely worth repeating!

But I fear your lungs are wasting their breath on those who will not 
hear or see :-(

If it helps any, C# .NET is so much worse. I've given up trying to 
remove all these spurious references because they cloak themselves in 
dependencies on each other like the Gordian Framework that I'm sure Arne 
loves.

But I've decided to give modern programming a go so I re-referenced 
jQuery and added, AngularJS, MooTools, Prototype, Bootstrap, YUI, and 
several others, surely only an idiot would re-invent the wheel? All 
great stuff!

Has anyone seen my steamer trunk? Actual forget that, get me a sea 
container.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32233

On 7/31/2015 9:10 AM, Silvio wrote:
> On 07/31/2015 04:53 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/29/2015 11:30 AM, Eternal Hope wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2015 13:14, e.d.programmer@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:04:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>
>>>> I interviewed for a job once, they were only looking for someone who
>>>> knows jQuery, so maybe a good thing I didn't get it.
>>>> As far as I know our web site just uses html, javascript, php.
>>>
>>> I looked at JQuery once, it's effectively like learning a framework and
>>> I don't do that if I can possibly avoid it.
>>
>> I would say that it is very difficult to do any serious programming
>> without a framework today.
>
> Strongly disagree.

Hmm.

Maybe we have a different definition of framework.

I would say that it rather common to consider all the following
for frameworks:
* Java EE parts
* third party Java EE frameworks Struts, Spring MVC etc.
* general libraries like Spring,log4j, JUnit etc.
* JavaFX, Swing, AWT
* Java SE collections
* Java SE JAXP

A Java application without any framework would be something
using java.lang and java.io.

>> Java programming is full of them.
>
> Totally agree.
>
> The contemporary Java world is one of cargo cult programmers. To get
> even the tiniest stupid project going typical Java programmers throw
> Spring/*, Hibernate/JPA, Maven, GWT, JSF and at least a couple of test
> frameworks on a big pile and start rolling around in them screaming
> "agile" and "devops" from the top of their longs.

It is common in Java to use a bunch of libraries/frameworks, but I think
it is the same in C#, modern C++ etc..

You don't need that big a project to want:
- some sort of configuration to glue things together
- persistence of data
- build
- UI
- unit tests

So you find something that meet your requirements. It can be:
- DIY framework
- third party light framework
- third party heavy framework
but you need something.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32236

On 01/08/2015 00:34, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/31/2015 9:10 AM, Silvio wrote:
>> On 07/31/2015 04:53 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2015 11:30 AM, Eternal Hope wrote:
>>>> On 29/07/2015 13:14, e.d.programmer@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> You don't need that big a project to want:
> - some sort of configuration to glue things together

java.util.properties
java.util.preferences
xml and javax.xml and yes I realize that javax means extension.

> - persistence of data

plain vanilla sql
java.sql
javax.sql
suitable implementation of a jdbc driver

> - build

ant, not a framework

> - UI

html5, css3, plain vanilla javascript

> - unit tests

really, ok, well JUnit is a framework, it's hardly required though is it

> So you find something that meet your requirements. It can be:

What you don't seem to understand is that all these various frameworks 
are largely built out of 'standard' java. They are effectivley elevating 
the language to a higher level. Higher level, more abstract, high 
payload (stuff you will never use)

I stick to plain vanilla when I can and I don't mind admitting it and 
there's not much I can't do, in fact I can't think of anything I can't 
do and I don't need a framework to do it. My SQL is spare, and usually 
works OOTB, my java compiles first time. Years of practice and studious 
avoidance of frameworks.

Give me a basic text editor, a terminal and a runtime and compiler and 
I'm good to go

> - DIY framework
> - third party light framework
> - third party heavy framework
> but you need something.

You don't, you really don't



-- 
Laughing Spam Fritter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32238

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 05:39:12 +0100, Eternal Hope wrote:

> I stick to plain vanilla when I can and I don't mind admitting it and
> there's not much I can't do, in fact I can't think of anything I can't
> do and I don't need a framework to do it. My SQL is spare, and usually
> works OOTB, my java compiles first time. Years of practice and studious
> avoidance of frameworks.
> 
> Give me a basic text editor, a terminal and a runtime and compiler and
> I'm good to go
>
Yep. I see no need for JUnit either: having used it, I wasn't impressed 
with the appearance or content of the test results. 

Instead I prefer to script rather than program my unit/regression tests, 
though I admit this probably shows a bias toward the UNIX way of doing 
things rather than the Windows way. My approach is simple: one driver 
class I wrote years ago that reads the script, splits non-comment lines 
into words (function name followed by argument list the comments describe 
expected results), and passes the function name and arguments to an 
interface class which is little more than an if..then..else totem pole 
and is specific to the class(es) that the script tests. When run, the 
output is the script with interspersed results, i.e. something thats 
easily readable. Regression tests? Simple: a bash script that diffs the 
output against saved good output from a previous run. If there's any 
output from diff, the regression test failed. 

This approach is not only dead simple, its fast too. Even scripts 
containing several tens of test cases typically run in well under a 
second, so its practical to run a suite of regression tests after every 
successful compile to prove that the last changes didn't break anything.

I use the same approach for C development. Also, because the test 
harnesses have very few dependencies, its entirely practical to 
distribute them with the source so anybody can use the regression tests 
to check that they have successfully compiled and installed the code.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web