When I introduced the PatternMatcher stuff recently, I used the same
kind of "reflection" trick we use for locators, commands, etc;
PatternMatcher tried to map a prefix like "regexp" to a function-name
like "RegexpMatchStrategy".
I realised tonight that it's simpler to just build the registry
directly, rather than rely on these naming conventions. What it means
is that rather than declaring
PatternMatcher.RegexpMatchStrategy = function(pattern) ...
now it says
PatternMatcher.strategies.regexp = function(pattern) ...
so we can index directly into the "strategies" array using the pattern
prefix.
I wonder if we could use the same approach for locators and
option-specifiers; what do you think? Perhaps even for commands and
assertions, too??
I guess I'm talking about rethinking Selenium's extension API, and if
we're rethinking it, we should probably be careful to introduce some
consistency. Currently we have
Selenium.prototype.doMyCommand = ...
Selenium.prototype.assertMyCondition = ...
PageBot.prototype.locateByMyCriteria = ...
PatternMatcher.strategies.myPatternType = ...
OptionLocatorFactory.prototype.OptionLocatorByMyCriteria = ...
How about something like:
Selenium.commands.myCommand = ...
Selenium.asserts.myCondition = ...
Selenium.elementLocators.myCriteria = ...
Selenium.patternMatchers.myPatternType = ...
Selenium.optionMatchers.myCriteria = ...
Thoughts?
--
cheers, MikeW http://www.dogbiscuit.org/mdub/
_______________________________________________
Selenium-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.public.thoughtworks.org/mailman/listinfo/selenium-devel
