I wanted to comment on the referenced paragraph...More below... On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Martin Krauskopf defenestrated me: > > With what to start? I could start with writing test in Ruby. Those tests > would ensure that backends correspond closely to the "specification". > Since there is not yet any specification I would also start to writing > it in the wiki format on RDT's wiki[1] for now. I would simply write it > as it currently correspond to the current implementation and gradually I > would switch from specification-by-implementation to > implementation-by-specification. I believe it will bring a lot of > clearance to the protocol. Those Ruby communication-test will be more > pedantic (kind of low-level) than current functional test written in > Java. Current Java test suite will be still useful for checking Java > parsers functionality. Doesn't this interfere with of anybody's else > work?
I would write this specification using unit/test API compatiable tests. This could still serve as a specification and plug straight into our testing framework (we (JRuby) are moving to miniunit/test/unit tests). Having small pass/fail tests will make it easier for us to support this effort. -Tom -- + http://www.tc.umn.edu/~enebo +---- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----+ | Thomas E Enebo, Protagonist | "Luck favors the prepared | | | mind." -Louis Pasteur | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Rubyeclipse-development mailing list Rubyeclipse-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rubyeclipse-development
