On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (stefano commented on my blog at >> http://www.jroller.com/robertburrelldonkin/entry/testing_protocols but >> i'd like to move it back to this list) >> >> the reason why an independent protocol testing product isn't suitable >> for JAMES is not community (i think that it'd fit in very well) but >> scope. a micro-library for functional testing wire protocols is >> clearly out of scope for JAMES. it would be unusual but just about in >> scope for the commons. IIRC the commons sandbox has an open door >> policy towards committers from other projects so there wouldn't be any >> problem moving the community. the mailing list is high volume which >> might put some people off. >> > > I'm very interested, with both my James and Vysper hats on.
cool > I was just beginning to think about how ro play back XMPP commands in > an elegant way for functional testing. > But XMPP might go way beyond what is needed here with mail-related > protocols. For example since XMPP is based on XML, it also has the > variations of XML: two commands are the same, even if for example > attributes come in different order. RegEx might not help here anymore > while IMAP might be fine with using them. the current library is line based but should be easy enough to create an xml based variation - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
