[Rxtx] rxtx 2010 rewrite
adrian.crum at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 23 11:49:22 MST 2010
Check out the current repo using these instructions:
you will find the rewrite in the Rewrite2010 folder. There is a pdf
document in that folder that gives an overview of the rewrite.
--- On Tue, 11/23/10, Brian Schlining <bschlining at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brian Schlining <bschlining at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Rxtx] rxtx 2010 rewrite
To: rxtx at qbang.org
Date: Tuesday, November 23, 2010, 8:17 AM
Where's the source code for the rewrite?
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 06:25, Adrian Crum <adrian.crum at yahoo.com> wrote:
I will be working on unit tests next. I have experience with JUnit and Cobertura. The rewrite contains software loopbacks for testing without hardware loopbacks, and I was thinking hardware loopbacks could be used via settings in the properties file - so CI can test for regressions. My hope is once we have 100% test coverage on the rewrite, the community will have greater confidence in it.
--- On Mon, 11/22/10, Trent Jarvi <tjarvi at qbang.org> wrote:
> From: Trent Jarvi <tjarvi at qbang.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rxtx] rxtx 2010 rewrite
> To: rxtx at qbang.org
> Cc: "Dave" <davestechshop at gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, November 22, 2010, 7:57 PM
> I'm not for or against the rewrite effort. I do
> represent one of those people needing 'stable now' when I go
> to work. Here at home I'm interested in the future of
> RXTX for all those neat projects I hear about. I'm all for
> some experimenting and growing.
> What RXTX lacks is not coders. We have had many ideas
> bouncing around and some code that deals with things like
> serial ports that vanish (USB). The C++ rewrite is
> proof of interest there and I'm glad to see it.
> So whats missing?
> The JCP required test suites. CommAPI and RXTX lack
> test suites. CommAPI was grandfathered into the JCP and
> shortly later 'broken' for a customer right in the JCP by
> adding Solaris specific hooks.
> Testing CommAPI/RXTX is difficult.
> At work I have test suites but the coverage is specific to
> those needs - these tests existed before I started working
> there. Maybe they cover your needs, maybe not. I
> use those to qualify RXTX releases which is alot more than I
> used to do. The tests are in MATLAB code going through
> a layer of java and don't lend well to sharing (though its a
> possibility). Those test suites are the best we all have at
> this time as far as I know and that does not bode well for a
> smooth transition to a rewrite for multiple projects.
> I could run the suites against the rewrite. Honestly,
> I'm not comfortable that they cover enough for generic
> qualification though. As an example, the testsuite
> requires a loopback connection. Fun thing is the other
> side is always configured like your side. Setting
> hardware flow control failed? No problem. Its
> still odd parity? Good to go! It failed on the
> other side too.
> In agreement with Julie, there are many subtle things in
> rxtx that took more than 3 years to flush out. That
> does not mean we can't figure out how to move forward
> (without the circus wagons).
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, jfh at greenhousepc.com
> > Adrian,
> > As I've said before, some of us are ready, willing and
> able to work on RXTX,
> > but we need something much more stable NOW, and the
> existing code base is
> > the most stable, most time-tested thing going. It's
> easy to say "it should
> > work reliably", but my experience is that code like
> this typically takes 2
> > to 3 =years= before there is enough experience with
> the code to be called
> > "working reliably".
> > What I'd like to know is who feels they have a
> =reliable=, =stable=,
> > relatively =bug-free= version of the existing code
> that could be a base for
> > something that can tide people over until your work is
> well enough tested
> > that people can start migrating less critical
> applications to it. My
> > company puts products inside boxes that have to work
> for years on end. I'm
> > not going to trust my company's existence to a brand
> new re-write, and I
> > suspect there are a number of other business owners or
> consultants who are
> > in the same situation.
> > --
> > Julie Haugh
> > Senior Design Engineer
> > greenHouse Computers, LLC // jfh at greenhousepc.com
> // greenHousePC on
> > Skype
> > -------- Original
> Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [Rxtx]
> rxtx 2010 rewrite
> > From: Adrian Crum
> <adrian.crum at yahoo.com>
> > Date: Sun, November 21,
> 2010 9:21 pm
> > To: Dave <davestechshop at gmail.com>,
> rxtx at qbang.org
> > The rewrite is
> preliminary code - it needs more work. It should
> > work reliably in a
> Windows environment. The rewrite needs more
> > community participation
> to move it along.
> > The best resource for
> help is the RXTX mailing list -
> > rxtx at qbang.org.
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> Rxtx mailing list
> Rxtx at qbang.org
Rxtx mailing list
Rxtx at qbang.org
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
bschlining at gmail.com
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Rxtx mailing list
Rxtx at qbang.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rxtx