> > But the tests are an order of magnitude faster than they were when they
> > just used Thread.sleep(), and they are as reliable as they were before,
> > so that's good enough for me.
>
> So, you were able to write tests for Quartz with these fakes?
No, sorry, I wasn't clear. I've never heard of Quartz before this
thread. My tests have to do with a proprietary code library that
schedules future activities according to a variety of possible
scheduling schemes.
I imagine that the same sorts of things are hard when using Quartz as
when using to other multi-threaded systems that schedule activities
based on the system time. (That's what Quartz does, right? I'm afraid
I don't still have the original message, and I didn't read it very
carefully.)
If Quartz interacts with the system time directly, it would have to be
modified to go through the Clock interface instead ... given that,
though, it ought to work.
Cheers,
bn
--
Brett Neumeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
