From: Eric Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >One other tool to consider is Parasoft's JTest. It does similar static >code analysis (which I think is the most useful part of the tool) as >well as dynamic whitebox-type testing. The static tests have proved >quite helpful to me. In lieu of a line-by-line review of every source >file, JTest gives me some confidence that nothing really crazy lurks >within.
>I'd be happy to run JTest against the ant codebase and post the results >somewhere. I must admit, though, that the Webgain / QA results are >prettier. They did not improve the report with time. I submitted the idea of XML reporting more than a year and a half to Parasoft when I exposed my nightly build requirements. I was amazed by how poor were the reporting features for the price. Parasoft was definitely too expensive for this purpose and integration would have been more painful. I also absolutely did not like the pressure to buy the tool. They were reluctent to even give me a 3-day evaluation and we were speaking about a $20,000 figure. JTest developer version is way too expensive for the features (one class at a time), the learning curve is somewhat consequent if you use the dynamic features. About the 'project' version, it is damn expensive. Out of curiosity how much did you pay for JTest ? Stephane -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
