[Xapian-discuss] PHP Bindings

[James Aylett]

On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 02:54:38PM +0100, Olly Betts wrote:

> > > I'm planning to add an automated "smoke test" to each bindings too, so
> > > "make check" will run a simple script for each which at least ensures
> > > that the extension can be loaded and (say) stemming a word works.
> > 
> > Could we have a slightly bigger one that tests the core Xapian
> > functionality through InMemory?
> 
> Yes, but I don't really have the time to mess with this - I've a lot
> of core library stuff I want to sort out.

Can you at least create a Document object? Because the stemmers are
somewhat disjoint from the rest of the library, I'd like to see the
main bit working, however trivially.

> The gain from having a test which shows the extension loads and can be
> called is substantial and the effort is small.  More extensive tests
> would be useful - ideally we'd check that as many methods of as many
> classes as possible can be called and give sane results.  I'll leave
> that as a project for someone else.

It's on my list for Python bindings, but I want to fix exceptions
first.

> > [is_empty() vs empty() in bindings]
> > 
> > I vote for changing them all to empty() /
> > XapianWhatever_empty(). (It's possible that plain empty() in PHP could
> > have caused problems sometimes? Doesn't matter with prefixing.)
> 
> OK, I'll do that.  Do we want to keep the is_empty() forms around for a
> while, or do we still consider the bindings to be sufficiently under
> development that we can rename a method provided we advertise it clearly
> in the NEWS file?

I think we want a minor version bump if we drop is_empty(), so if
we're at a patch level and the moment we probably want to leave them
in for now.

J

-- 
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  James Aylett                                                  xapian.org
  james at tartarus.org                               uncertaintydivision.org