[TIP] Result protocol / problems being solved (really)

Doug Philips dgou at mac.com
Tue Apr 14 11:10:02 PDT 2009

On or about Tuesday, April 14, 2009, at 11:55AM, Jesse Noller indited:
>On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Victoria G. Laidler <...> wrote:
>> I thought about this, but I was trying to separate issues pertaining to the
>> result protocol itself (what data it contains, what is the underlyling data
>> model) from issues pertaining to the wire format and parsing.

+1 (I was trying to do this as well.)

>We'll need to agree to disagree: I can't ignore something as
>fundamental as making this standard, built on standard technologies. I
>think anything which defined some custom syntax, requiring parser
>implementations is a quick road to failtown.

I think you are over reacting a bit. If we can agree on what data we want to collect and what types it will be, then how it is marshalled over the wire is barely interesting. You could plug in to your favorite formatting engine and Victoria could plug into her formatting engine.

Tool interoperability does need a common wire-formatting, I -get- that.
Its been my experience that it is simpler to work out what to transmit separately from how. Tangling those together is also a quick road to loseburgh.


More information about the testing-in-python mailing list