On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:42:38 -0800, Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 2/12/01 12:38 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > ----
> > "Why didn't I start working with JUnit instead of creating our own testing
> > environment?"
> > ----
>
> No. My statement really is:
>
> ----
> Why don't you look to see if you can work with the JUnit community to extend
> JUnit to do what you want.
> ----
>
> You are missing the important word there: "community".
>
> The point being, yet again I repeat myself, instead of creating yet another
> project to do Unit testing, why don't you work with the JUnit community to
> extend it to do what you want.
>
> In your email you say:
>
> "Overall, JUnit feels very small scale"
>
> My response is:
>
> Why don't you work with the JUnit people so that it doesn't feel very small
> scale?
>
> Again: don't create yet another project because the other one doesn't fit
> your needs today. Work with existing projects to make them fit your needs.
> If they don't want you or the license is incompatible, then that is an
> acceptable reason to fork.
>From what I can get in Shane's message, there is nothing to fork, he already
had his ideas and developed his own framework long before JUnit was in the
radar screen. The code is not based on JUnit so there's no worry of forking
anything.
I believe we should look at the merits of his framework before discussing how
or whether it can or should be integrated with JUnit. Your approach of one size
fits all doesn't always work.
Shane, do you have the code in a shape that could be posted on the Web for
others to review? I'm very much interested in a framework that has the
capabilities you describe.
Thanks,
--
Ovidiu Predescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://orion.nsr.hp.com/ (inside HP's firewall only)
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/7464/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
