hi! I don't know if I should have an opinion on this matter as there is so much in it that I don't know about. Also I have not had time to look at aspctj further. So take my ignorance in account with my comments.
I heard first time of JUnit last summer and was fascinated by the ideas in it. JUnit is straight forward and using JUnitEE and/or Cactus makes it possible to test also J2EE components. Now you propose, that Cactus would no longer be JUnit testcases but something else. You would also like to include checking the code against rather abstract design patterns - sounds complicated and hard to understand or implement. If the tests become very complicated will anybody use them? Remember, that the main interest for the programmer is to write his program, if testcases can be implemented easily and the programmer has real use of them e.g. as he can write the testcases instead of auxiliary main-programs while he writes the components. OK! I have been wrong sometimes. Especially when trying to forecast into the future. This could of course be such time? regards Kaarle Kaila >It means that a single test is no longer made up of a single testXXX() >method as in junit but can actually be composed of as many "checkpoints" as >is desirable (and needed). > >Note that all this will mean that cactus v2 tests will not be junit test >cases. However, it is probably possible to write a wrapper facade (if we >wish) so that junit test runners could be used along with existing junit >integration tools in IDEs for example. > >What do you think about all that ? Im' interested in your feedback ! >Thanks > >-Vincent --------------------------------------------- Kaarle Kaila http://www.iki.fi/kaila mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +358 50 3725844 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
