# from Adrian Howard
# on Monday 12 November 2007 09:00:
>On 26 Oct 2007, at 18:05, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> Building it as a TAP::Harness plugin sort-of implies that the tap
>> stream contains diagnostics which tie the results to a given class.
Note: that was my "case against".
But I also wrote:
Perhaps a solution which involves a pre-fork model of
Test::Class would be a little neater. The "test scripts"
would then be sub-sub-processes and the harness just needs
filehandles from each of those.
>When the free time fairy next visits what I'd like to do is have T::C
>use some of the newer features and push information on the class/name/
>tags of the running method out into TAP.
Well, whatever tagging and formatting is fine and dandy.
I was suggesting that rethinking the run layer would solve more issues,
and it inherently 'tags' the output as coming from different processes.
--Eric
--
"Everything goes wrong all at once."
--Quantized Revision of Murphy's Law
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
