Hi Dan,

they actually address very different concerns.

The web scenario runner is a webapp that aims to provide a simple web interface to run any scenario (which could be a scenario that uses Selenium under the hood, but in most cases it won't be a web-related scenario). So as such it has nothing to do with Selenium compatibility or the Selenium API. In my current project we use the scenario web runner to drive core-backed demos or to set up data for web-based demos. The web-demos may be run manually or automated via Selenium.

The jbehave-selenium module (include in same JBehave Web release) on the other hand is a collection of utility classes that aims to provide a better integration between JBehave and Selenium. E.g. it provides a SeleniumSteps class that Selenium-based scenarios can use as a base class.

Hope that clarifies the scope of the two concerns.

I've tried to make clear this distinction in docs:

http://jbehave.org/documentation/web-integration/

Cheers

Dan North wrote:
Hi Mauro.

What is the overlap/similarity/alignment with this and, say, the Selenium API? Would it be worth making it Selenium-compatible or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Cheers,
Dan


2009/8/9 Mauro Talevi <mauro.tal...@aquilonia.org <mailto:mauro.tal...@aquilonia.org>>

    Folks,

    I've published 2.0-rc1 of JBehave Web release, which provided an web
    integration layer on top of JBehave Core.  The main objective of
    this layer is to provide a simple web-based interface to running
    scenarios. A typical use case of this is when non-developers (e.g.
    BAs/QAs) need to run scenarios without accessing developer resources
    such as source control or the build setup.

    The scenario web runner has been in use on a commercial project for
    several months (via its successive betas) and has been tested in
    both Jetty and WebSphere, although is should work for any standard
    compliant servlet container.

    More info on:

    http://jbehave.org/documentation/web-integration/scenario-web-runner/

    As it's proven quite stable, I'd like to call for a 2.0 release.

    Any objections or reasons not to?

    Cheers




    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

      http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply via email to