Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components
Subject: Re: interface verification, etc.  (was Using Components)
Message-ID: <5550@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 21 May 89 20:47:06 GMT
References: <24638@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 18

From hughes@math.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Hughes):
> billwolf%hazel (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) writes:
>> If a "full verification" was done, including semantics, then 
>> integration testing would become unnecessary.
> 
> Are you asserting that it is both possible and feasible to specify
> the semantics of a component so completely that integration testing
> becomes unnecessary?  

    No, I'm saying that if it were possible, and in fact being done,
    then the absence of any need for integration testing would be a 
    derivable conclusion.  The fact that I indicated that this
    conclusion did not hold proves the invalidity of the premise
    that my reference to verification for "consistency and completeness" 
    somehow implied that component semantics were being verified. 

    
    Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu