...ant
On 11/8/06, Asankha C. Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, I agree +1.. This would help in writing test cases for both
serialization as well as deserialization
asankha
Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Yes
>
> +1
>
> Paul
>
> On 11/8/06, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Its quite easy right now to forget to implement the MediatorSerializer
>> interface when you're implementing a new mediator. You have to
>> implement the
>> MediatorFactory interface as thats the only way to get the Mediator
>> picked
>> up by the runtime but nothing tells you that you should also implement
>> MediatorSerializer. Is it the intention that every mediator should
>> have an
>> associated MediatorSerializer? If so how about moving the
>> MediatorSerializer
>> methods to the MediatorFactory interface so you have to implement them?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> On 11/7/06, indika kumara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi all
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I figure out that in current synapse distribution, There are no
>> Test Cases
>> for both Mediator Factories and MediatorSerializerers.I thinks It is
>> better
>> to have some Test Cases to assure functionality of those. I hope to
>> working
>> on creating Junit Test Cases for both Mediator Factories and
>> MediatorSerializerers.I expect to follow ,following steps in
>> developing Test
>> Cases.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 1 Build a OMElement form a XML Stream – Input OM
>> >
>> > 2 Build a Mediator form that Input OM using Factory
>> >
>> > 3 Serialize a Mediator and get OM - Output OM
>> >
>> > 4 Compare Input OM and Output OM
>> >
>> >
>> > Please give your comments on this...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Best Regards
>> >
>> > Indika
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
