On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
> > harness.
>
> No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
>
I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful. However, are you
implying that assuming we have that, one can write several different test
harnesses to process such test outputs? (I'm just guessing.)
Wouldn't that imply duplicate code, duplicate functionality and/or duplicate
effort? Shouldn't we try to avoid that by making sure that we have one *good*
test harness codebase that can be customised using plug-ins, and extensions?
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/
95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the
bottom 5%.
