That's how I started so far, yes. But that's still one thing I also wonder about. I thought that maybe, in some rare cases, one would want to specify the URL (rather than access to the one the f/w set up). But this goes with crappy consideration about the lifecycle of it all (like each test class specify a different desired URL), also should the f/w be able to connect "tests" to some random l2, not f/w managed? I've decided to ignore these 2 concerns for now. I think 99% of the use cases won't require anything like that, wdyt?
On 20 May 2010, at 17:35, Geert Bevin wrote: > The URL should be optional, no? People that don't care which server they're > running with and just want to run functional system tests in TC shouldn't > need to specify the URL, right? > > On 20 May 2010, at 17:31, Alex Snaps wrote: > >> I indeed want the test fw to inject the proper provider depending on the >> current environment the test is being run in. >> As for injecting the URL, this will indeed also be required (say to >> configure your ehcache). >> I also expect the current Environment you're being executed in to become >> relevant (like loading different configs). >> Maybe I should rather inject some other TcTestContext that would also >> provide access to the ClusteringProvider? > > -- > Geert Bevin > Terracotta - http://www.terracotta.org > > _______________________________________________ > tc-dev mailing list > tc-dev@lists.terracotta.org > http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list tc-dev@lists.terracotta.org http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
