I still think the testing order should be determined. It's not the test cases themselves are asynchronous, it's the functions they are going to test are asynchronous, and that's why we use a "stop()" to stop a test case, and use a "start()" in the asynchronous function to restart the test case, by doing so, we make the tests synchronous, because if the asynchronous function never gets called, the "start()" never gets called, and the following test cases won't be executed.
On Oct 23, 6:50 pm, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Uhm, uhm ... AG is right ... Logically asynchronous events start > immediately upon firing, but they *finish* at an future undetermined > point on the time vector. (or "never") > This is why this paradigm is also called "fire and forget" ... vs > "wait for return" Synchronous paradigm. > Therefore: ordered firing of asynchronous events does not guarantee > ordered finishing. > This is why they are called "asynchronous" , a.k.a. "out-of-sync" ... > > --DBJ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
