# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-16 16:01:39 +0100:
> could you point me at the svn web view that shows the utility code in
> question?
> it might give me some ideas.
I don't think it's relevant, but here you go:
http://svn.sigpipe.cz/viewvc/view/trunk/testilence/src/Testilence/util.php?view=markup
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-16 13:56:01 +0100:
>> my gut says that it would be easiest to just keep to seperate copies of
>> the utility class(es) one for each project, although it kind of depends
>> on how large & complicated the utlity is ... this would remove all the
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-16 13:56:01 +0100:
> my gut says that it would be easiest to just keep to seperate copies of
> the utility class(es) one for each project, although it kind of depends
> on how large & complicated the utlity is ... this would remove all the
> described
> problems and l
ok, I'm starting to grok it now :-)
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
...
>> from looking at runkit it would seem using runkit_import() would work,
>> it would mean you simply 'include' the utility class(es) in both Testilence
>> and
>> Amock using runkit_import() and that would simply cause the second 'i
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-16 11:41:08 +0100:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-14 20:47:02 +0100:
> >> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > The goal is to make a successful run of the test suite a prerequisite of
> > the utility installation... Think RPM or similar: if X.rpm dep
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-14 20:47:02 +0100:
>> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>>> I have a circular dependency, and am looking for thoughts on breaking
>>> the cycle without (much) redundancy or hard to automate procedures.
>>>
>>> I'm developing two programs, Testilence, a un
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-14 20:47:02 +0100:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > I have a circular dependency, and am looking for thoughts on breaking
> > the cycle without (much) redundancy or hard to automate procedures.
> >
> > I'm developing two programs, Testilence, a unit testing library, and
>
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> I have a circular dependency, and am looking for thoughts on breaking
> the cycle without (much) redundancy or hard to automate procedures.
>
> I'm developing two programs, Testilence, a unit testing library, and
> Amock (library for mock object generation, but that's irre
I have a circular dependency, and am looking for thoughts on breaking
the cycle without (much) redundancy or hard to automate procedures.
I'm developing two programs, Testilence, a unit testing library, and
Amock (library for mock object generation, but that's irrelevant in this
discussion); both
9 matches
Mail list logo
