Vincent Massol wrote on 8/25/01 12:02 pm:
>I think that if we wish to
>provide a strong and reliable
>http client framework we
>ought to have a good suite of
>unit test that we will enrich
>as we go along and find bugs.
>I have had a brief look at the
>current tests and we really
>need to refine them.
Agreed, we could definitley use more tests.
>They also rely on the
>installation of a web server
>on your machine which I don't
>like too much as the test will
>pass and fail depending on
>which one you use ...
Isn't that an advantage? After all, wouldn't you want to try running your tests on
the actual server you will be communicating with?
>Instead I propose to simply
>use Mock Objects to provide
>a reliable suite of tests,
>which is independent of the
>web server installed. The
>principle is simple: we simply
>need to create a mock
>Socket class and a way to
>pass this mock to the
>HttpClient class. The idea is
>that it is possible from our
>test case to set the
>behaviour that we expect
>from the mock Socket class,
>like what data it will return
>on the output stream, ...
>there is absolutely no logic in
>the mock implementation,
>just setters and getters.
I think we want to be testing real servers, so we can uncover a wider variety of
problems.
>I'll write one ASAP but I'd like
>to know if I can be voted in ....
>I am yearning to go forward
>especially as Cactus now
>relies on HttpClient.
You don't need our approval to be a committer, but I don't know if this particular
task is a good idea.
- Morgan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
