Wes Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't know if it's worth bickering about, but why not specify
> Class.method()?
Consistency -- and knowing that a class implements an interface makes
error handling much easier. If the testsuite loads a class which
implements gnu.test.Test, it's guaranteed to be a valid test.
> This would help when you wanted to have some continuity for
> variables for subtests, as you could define them as statics on the
> same class.
Wouldn't a simple inner classes setup do what you're asking?
public class TestContainer {
static int foo = 1;
public static class test1 implements Test {
void test() {
// use foo
}
}
public static class test2 implements Test {
void test() {
// use foo
}
}
}
--
Paul Fisher * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
