On 11/9/05, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/9/05, John Paul Ashenfelter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And while there are various xUnits for things like HTTP, there's > > pretty much just JUnit for java. > > Hmm, well, actually there are several testing frameworks for Java but > JUnit is certainly the most well-known - even if it is reviled by > various outspoken members of the Java community :)
Lots of them are based on JUnit under that hood (as you well know). MockObjects and that bunch are a little more unusual and have their proponents :) > Look at the application frameworks space: back in the day, we really > just had Fusebox and over time people 'got' that an application > framework was a Good Thing(tm). (well, a lot of people 'got' it - > there are still some that don't) Once the basic idea that an > application framework was good took hold, other frameworks became more > acceptable as well, combined with the acceptance of some OO principles > in the CF community. Now we're even OK with some fairly specialized > application frameworks. We've come a long way in that space. Heck yeah! And mostly in the past, say, 18-24 months. > We have a long way to go in the testing space. Given the 'need' to > raise awareness of testing and TDD in the CF community, I'd say that a > combined CF(C)Unit test framework would really benefit folks by > providing focus. Agreed. I think one of the stumbling blocks is that CF is so much more, well, flexible, than Java. If we were writing a Java web app using JSP and POJOs, we'd test the POJOs with JUnit and maybe if we're good, munge around with Cactus, JSPUnit, HTTPUnit, or even Selenium to test the web side of things. We'd use a different set of test tools for different tiers of the application. With CF, CFCs are very objecty and thus quite testable. Arbitrary CFML pages are much less so. It makes sense to have tools to test both types of pages -- and it might make sense that there are really two separate tools -- but for now, bundling everything in one place makes a lot of sense to get a strong community moving. A core cfunit that can be extended easily for other kinds of testing outside of just CFCs would offer the benefits of extensibility while maintaining compatibility. -- John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint (blog) http://www.ashenfelter.com (email) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
