On 11/7/06, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Paulex Yang wrote:
>> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
>> >> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
>> >> TestNG...(including me)
>> >
>> > I don't understand - what do you mean?
>> Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it
>> cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
>> instead...
>>
>> Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
>
> If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x
> seems just as capable as TestNG.
There was a(or several?) long long thread discussing the TestNG/JUnit 4
comparison, and IIRC most people prefer TestNG at that time, I just
don't want to trig another thread on this topic...We have waited so long
for TestNG, so let's just go for it if nothing is preventing us now...:)

This is NOT the impression I got from the various threads. I was under
the impression that we were waiting to demonstrate that TestNG could
be used to execute tests with the various mix-n-match uses cases (OS,
failing, etc). I was waiting for an actual demonstration of the
complex use cases.

It's possible I missed the consensus; I couldn't keep up with all of
the threads.

-Nathan


>
> -Nathan
>
>> >
>> > geir
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Paulex - being desperate
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paulex Yang
>> China Software Development Lab
>> IBM
>>
>>
>>
>


--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM



Reply via email to