I think I'd survice with begin/end :) Would it be called via reflection still?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Patrick Lightbody'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Cactus Users List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:55 AM Subject: RE: [VOTE] Rename clientSetUp() and clientTearDown() in 1.5dev > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 01 August 2002 18:48 > > To: Vincent Massol; 'Cactus Users List' > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename clientSetUp() and clientTearDown() in > 1.5dev > > > > Well, since you put it that way... I see your point. My only concern > is > > confusion between beginXxx() and begin(), being that one is tied to an > > individual test and the other is tied to the test suite, yet they both > > share > > a common name. > > yes, I also see your point ... :-). I don't really care but we need a > name with which cactus users will be comfortable with as it will be hard > to change once it is released. Hence the vote I have asked. ATM more > persons seem to prefer begin() and end(). Let's let it open for a few > days and we'll see then. > > Could you live with begin() and end() if that choice was made or are you > categorically -1 ? > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > > -Pat > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Cactus Users List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "'Patrick Lightbody'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:43 PM > > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Rename clientSetUp() and clientTearDown() in > 1.5dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Patrick Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: 01 August 2002 11:11 > > > > To: Cactus Users List > > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rename clientSetUp() and clientTearDown() in > > > 1.5dev > > > > > > > > Personally I think clientSetUp and clientTearDown make more sense, > > > > assuming > > > > they work just like setUp and tearDown (once per test). > > > > > > ... yes, but Cactus has already extended JUnit by having beginXXX() > and > > > endXXX() methods that are executed on the client side. In other > words, > > > Cactus is "Junit-compliant" on the server side but the client side > is > > > purely Cactus-specific. > > > > > > As we already have beginXXX() and endXXX(), don't you think it looks > > > logical to have begin() and end() being global extensions (before > and > > > after each test) ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > > > > -Pat > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Cc: "'Cactus Users List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:56 AM > > > > Subject: [VOTE] Rename clientSetUp() and clientTearDown() in > 1.5dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Charles Massey has proposed on the 15th of July another name for > the > > > > > clientSetUp() and clientTearDown() methods : begin() and end(). > > > > > > > > > > I think it is a better name than what we have and I propose to > make > > > the > > > > > change to begin() and end(). It is more logical as we already > have > > > > > beginXXX() and endXXX() methods. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think ? > > > > > > > > > > Here is my +1 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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]>
