- From: Michael B Allen <mballen@erols.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 02:48:37 -0500
- To: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
- Cc: www-dom-ts@w3.org
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:57:22 -0700 "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com> wrote: > Any opinions on CppUnit? I used an earlier version on the xmlconf test > suite for Xerces-C and it seemed okay. Using CppUnit to test both C++ and C > implementations would reduce the work needed, but would be less than ideal > for testing on platforms where there were no C++ compilers. > This is a distinct possibility. It's definately farther along but doesn't look like there's much more code behind it. I can think of other advantages to using C++. One thing I like about Check is that it forks a process for the test so a segfault doesn't bring down the whole test. It took me all of about 15 minutes to get Check going so I might as well just go with that until I run into these problems Fred's talking about. Right now I'm off learning about XSLT and getting a little side tracked (stk.push(domts)). Mike -- May The Source be with you.
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 02:42:14 UTC