-- Arthur Kalmenson >> So does this mean that GWTTestCases still spawns off a headless hosted >> mode that's using an embedded Tomcat and not an embedded Jetty? > > That is correct. It sounds like what I'm hearing though, is that there > would be a lot of interest in us providing an explicit upgrade path, so that > tests could be transitioned. If we did this, it might even make sense to > deprecate the old-style but keep it in for now for backwards compatibility.
OK, because my understanding was that the embedded Jetty will allow hosted mode to start faster, which would be a great improvement for GWTTestSuites/GWTTestCases. Thanks! On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Arthur Kalmenson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> > 1) Backwards compatibility. If we updated JUnitShell to use HostedMode, >> > it >> > seems like old test cases would probably break. The idea of a >> > JUnitHostedMode is a good one... but how would we be able to tell which >> > one >> > the user meant, since the JUnit framework is in control? >> >> So does this mean that GWTTestCases still spawns off a headless hosted >> mode that's using an embedded Tomcat and not an embedded Jetty? > > That is correct. It sounds like what I'm hearing though, is that there > would be a lot of interest in us providing an explicit upgrade path, so that > tests could be transitioned. If we did this, it might even make sense to > deprecate the old-style but keep it in for now for backwards compatibility. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
