[qmtest] PATCH: RemoteHost support

[Stefan Seefeld]

Mark,

this patch looks great ! Just some minor questions:

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> This patch adds a new abstraction (called RemoteHost) that can be used
> for running programs remotely.  (This facility is in contrast to the
> QMTest "Target" abstraction, which allows you to run *tests* remotely;
> this facility allows a test running on one machine to run a program on
> another.)

Why don't you call the extension 'Host' and make 'RemoteHost' and 'LocalHost'
subclasses ? I understand that the whole point of the abstraction is to
enable remote execution, it just sounds funny to define 'LocalHost' as
a subclass of 'RemoveHost'.


> !     The 'CompilerTable' resource provides the following context
> !     variables to all tests that depend upon the resource:
> ! 
> !     - 'CompilerTable.compilers'
> ! 
> !        The 'compilers' variable is a map from language names to
> !        instances of 'Compiler'.  Test classes should obtain the
> !        'Compiler' to use when compiling source files by using this
> !        map.

It seems the names defined for 'CompilerTable.languages' are just
conventions that user code (i.e. specific test / resource classes)
need to know about. However, wouldn't it be good to standardize
at least the names for the most common languages ?
In my first encounter with the CompilerTable it wasn't obvious
to me whether C++ would be spelled 'cplusplus', 'cxx', or something
else.

CompilerTable previously defined 'CompilerTable.compiler_table', instead
of 'CompilerTable.compilers'. While I think the new name is clearer,
I'm wondering whether any code still expects 'compiler_table', i.e.
whether the above change breaks backward compatibility. If not, all the
better.

Thanks,
		Stefan