HydraTools and minimal images

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 16:27:09 UTC 2008


On 13/02/2008, Klaus D. Witzel <klaus.witzel at cobss.com> wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> O.K. I think I got it :) Some final remarks:
>
> o yes I have the impression that functionality is good
> o it would not hurt to have written test cases for
> o - a channel which fails before 1st data transfer
> o - a channel which fails after 1st data transfer

- currently impossible , once 1st send was successful (you got id/magic)
the future sends can't fail unless receiver's side interpreter will
leave VM (which again is impossible, because not yet implemented :) )

> o - example timeout cases (other side is busy)

You mean timeouts when waiting incoming data?
It's pointless to introduce timeouts at this stage. But well, this can
be easily illustrated.

> o - example unresponsive cases (other side is dead)
> o - some positive cases (must transfer+verify good example data)
> o - demonstrate how to obtain+interpret feedback in these cases
>
I would add:
o - comparable benchmarks sockets vs channels

but first, i'd like to hear a design approval from project supervisor
( hello Andreas ;) ).
There is no point in writing test cases, if it could be
changed/replaced by something else at any moment :)

> Thanx for the illustrative conversation :)

Thank you for your feedback.

>
> /Klaus

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list