Subject: Re: [boost] [unit_test_framework] plans?
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-09 13:16:39
Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> There is also such thing as backward compatibility. Don't you think
>> users who
>> currently use static library variant of UTF would complain if all
>> their test
>> would start failing linking?
> I am not expecting anybody to break backward compatibility now.
> This just one solution that could have been implemented and it wasn't
> for some reason.
Originally the Boost.Test only supported static library. The main was
included to minimize the effort developer need to apply to write simple
est test module. It's still valid point. Unfortunately though we can't
do it with shared lib. Also some users (like you) prefer to have their
own entry point.
> I'm not sure that solution is worthy since it increases complexity.
It does. And it's not acceptable IMO.
> IMHO, the correct solution is to always have main() in the unit test and
> never have it in a library.
IMO it's not correct to force 95% of the users to write trivial main.
> I started this thread to find out what caused this uncomfortable
> situation about static and dynamic libraries.
IMO it's uncomfortable for small percent of users (in very particular
combination of conditions). And if then, solution always exists.
> From you answers its clear that the situation is this just because it
> has been this way from the beginning.
I guess. And I still believe it's good compromise for most users.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk