I meant the session wrapper on the client that allows to set content of the
real session on the server. But I guess I can use the implicit object
'session'
in the setUp method (invoked on the server) to set session content specific
to the test instead. Is this the correct approach ?
Thank you
Arkady
"Vincent Massol"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'Cactus Users List'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
Subject: RE: Session object on the
client side.
04/01/2002 11:49
AM
Please respond to
"Cactus Users
List"
Hi,
I don't understand. First Session objects are only available on the
server side as they are sever objects provided by the container. But
maybe you mean having a wrapper (like what already exists with
WebRequest) and then populating the real session object on the server
side ?
Fine, but I don't see the point. Session content is always in isolation
as each test case has its own session ... In other words, each test case
is independent of another (which is the point in unit testing).
Maybe I misunderstood something ? :-)
Thanks
-Vincent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 April 2002 17:14
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Session object on the client side.
>
> Hi,
>
> Would it make sense to have the ability to populate session object on
the
> client side. This would allow to test server side components that rely
on
> the
> session content in isolation ?
>
> Arkady
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:cactus-user-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:cactus-user-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
