On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Bernd Fondermann<[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped some good arguments] > XMPP is not only specified for socket transport. It's defined BOSH (over > HTTP) as well. I'm sure you wouldn't want to double every e2e test for > both transports? Yeah, I've worked a lot with XMPP (or Jabber in those days, for those with historical interests, here's a protocol proposal I wrote in 2001, ages ago http://www.protocol7.com/jabber/whiteboard_proposal.txt) over HTTP earlier (using it from browsers). While I don't think its a bad idea to have tests running over both HTTP and TCP, it might not be worth the double effort (if that what it would take). >> Again, let me point out that these tests should never replace the >> current tests but merely test at a different abstraction. > > Yes, I agree this could prove useful. But in most scenarios I can think > of at the moment, more unit-like tests would be > + simpler > + easier to write and maintain > + running much faster > + succeed more often ;-) Agreeing with all but the last. If these tests would turn out to be unstable, we should throw them out. > But we're kind of talking very theoretical here (otherwise my answer > could have been shorter and there'd be somebody still listening down > here). Let's talk about a concrete example. Agreed, I'll see what I can come up with :-) /niklas
