commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <j...@socialchange.net.au>
Subject Re: [jelly] http and validation tag libraries
Date Mon, 01 Jul 2002 13:52:40 GMT
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 08:27:09AM +0100, Vincent Massol wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Turner [mailto:jeff@socialchange.net.au]
> > Sent: 01 July 2002 02:48
> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [jelly] http and validation tag libraries
> > 
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > Somewhat curious as to why everyone's so keen to reuse the JUnit API
> > 8-) I've found it to be so tightly engineered and 'pattern dense'
> > that it's hard to reuse outside it's intended scope. JUnit goes to a
> > lot of effort to isolate TestCases, and for functional testing we
> > *want* to share information like session data. Once you've thrown
> > away the testXxx() method introspection, startUp(), tearDown(), and
> > all that, what's left?
> > 
> 
> - Mostly the tools and the front ends (TestRunner) : you can find JUnit
> integration in any IDE. In addition, why reinvent a new testing
> framework API when there is one already. I do agree with your remark of
> TestCase isolation for functional test cases. However, it does not seem
> to be such a problem to use JUnit for that (see my other email on the
> same thread). That said, I need to verify that what I wrote is correct

I agree that if it does work, and doesn't throw away too much that IDEs
rely on (like testcase's packages), it'll be pretty neat.

> Then you get the following additional benefits :
> - people already know how to use your framework because the interface
> (TestRunner) is standard (de facto)
> - you get documentation/support/etc for free for your testing front end
> - the JUnit name is a good seller ... :-)

:) All sounds good, but if you end up writing your own frontend (jelly
invoked from commandline), it won't be really relevant.

> -Vincent
> 
> Note: WRT to Jelly, try it you may like it ... :-) (If you haven't done
> so already !).

lol.. Jelly is obviously cool, and I bet if someone integrated it with
an MVC framework like Maverick, we'd have the makings of a
Cocoon-killer.

I was just questioning it's relevance to functional testing, where I
have first-hand experience that Ant does a perfectly adequate job. It
sounds like Jelly can provide a superset of Ant functionality with few
disadvantages, so I'll now shut up, go back to making Anteater the
rockingest little testing framework currently available :) and keep an
eye out for helping with Latka 2, particularly in the area of defining
reusable (read: stealable) APIs.

--Jeff

> > --Jeff
> > 
> > [1] http://aft.sourceforge.net/
> > 
> > 
> > > James
> > >

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message