> >
> >
> >
> > I'd say yes - and no. ;)
> >
> > From a functionality point of view, it's a great idea. Having just the
>one
> > framework lessens the learning, speeds up the implementation and
>encourages
> > testing.
> >
> > But... it's not unit testing, at least not as I understand the term. As an
> > extension to JUnit, it doesn't really "fit". Would this impact on any
> > linking from, for example, junit.org and related extreme programming
>pages?
> > (And so hinder take up?)
> >
>
>1) Well, yes ... but look at HttpUnit for example. It extends JUnit but does
>functional testing
>2) If you think at what Cactus uses from JUnit, it is the following :
>- assertions,
>- the client side that run the tests in a Test Runner and display the
>results (eitheir in text or graphically)
>We can still use these 2 features even if we do a funtional test framework.
>The good part to reusing JUnit are :
>- everyone already use JUnit and thus everyone knows how to start tests
>using JUnit. Thus everyone knows how to start Cactus tests (almost)
>- there are tools that have been written for JUnit to integrate it with IDE,
>... We can leverage this wealth of tools for starting our tests
>That's all of these features that Cactus uses from JUnit but as you can see
>they are not really related to unit testing.
Yes - and I probably should mention that my objections to the semantic
difference are *very* minor.
>3) HttpUnit is referenced on the JUnit web site
Oops. My bad ;(
> >
> > On balance, though, I'd go with the former as being far more important
>than
> > the semantic problems of the latter. Having the ability to do these tests
> > explicitly supported without yet another download is a great advantage.
> >
>
>good ! So you're +1 for adding functional tests to Cactus, right ?
Yup.
Jim
--
* Jim Cheesman *
Trabajo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (34)(91) 724 9200 x 2360
Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (34) 606 770 244
Practice safe eating -- always use condiments.
