DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29970>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29970

[PATCH] inserver junit testing





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-10-25 11:22 -------
In response to Bertrand's remark:
The extension proposed in 29970 is more 
or less complementary to the framework I proposed. In other words, they test 
things in different areas in the very nice picture you presented at GT2004. The 
extension that Claas Thiele proposes is useful to test your own components 
written in Java, in the environment where they will be used, i.e., 
Avalon/Excalibur. This is a good idea, since testing these components in 
isolation can be difficult, because your tests have to set up such an 
environment.
My unit-testing framework is meant to be used on pipelines and steps in the 
pipeline such as XSLT stylesheets. I should have made this clearer in my 
presentation, but I did not have your picture (which I used to explain this 
too people who asked me about this). Also, the focus in the projects I have 
used my framework (which should not be 'my' framework anymore) on was mostly 
on pipelines, XSLT stylesheets, and a few components written in Java 
(generators, transformers, ...).
Where my presentation and Claas' idea meet is in providing a 'real' 
environment in which to test components. In my framework, this environment 
is there because tests run in a 'real' Cocoon server environment. You could 
use that to unit-test Java components, but only the parts that you can 
access through a pipeline.
Another way to look at this is as a separation of concerns: The Java 
programmer making buisness logic modules will use JUnit, and 29970 provides 
a way to mimic the deployment environment. The XSLT programmer would use 
what I presented yesterday. Both are useful.
(I say "XSLT programmer" because I see XSLT as part of a functional 
programming language, providing primitive functions. Cocoon provides 
function-composition and application, which allows you to use higher order 
functions / stylesheets and lots more.)
Eventually, I think that different testing methods should be more 
integrated, using Ant for example, so thee will be one report generated 
giving a complete overview. But first I'd like to see how people think about 
what I did, and how they extend and modify it.

Reply via email to