Thanks for your answer ! I shall wait & see indeed. It's always hard when you have to choose between two products which both seem great. :) Your point on UI definition is sensible though. All in all, I guess my choice will be based on maturity...
Maybe Selenium 2 could implement telurium's UI definitions instead / in addition of theirs ? :) On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Jian Fang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > This is a very interesting question. > > I don't know the internal implementation of Selenium 2 and cannot really > make a judgement on it. I can only tell you > my personal opinions based on my reading on some documents and posts such > as: > > http://weblogs.java.net/blog/johnsmart/archive/2010/08/09/selenium-2w... > > Selenium 2 is actually the combination of two frameworks, i.e., Selenium 1 > and Webdriver. Webdriver introduced web Objects, i.e., user interface in the > form of classes with meaningfully-named fields and methods. This seems like > the UI module class in Tellurium. But I think > the UI definition in Tellurium is more expressive. Take the following sample > code from the above post as an example, > > @Test > public void theUserShouldBeAbleToTypeInQueryTerms() { > WebDriver driver = new FirefoxDriver(); > driver.get("http://www.google.com";); > WebElement queryField = driver.findElement(By.name("q")); > queryField.sendKeys("cats"); > queryField.submit(); > assertThat(driver.getTitle(), containsString("cats")); > > } > > It is still not very clear what the UI may look like. But UI definition is > very clear in Tellurium: > > *ui.Container(uid: "GoogleSearchModule", clocator: [tag: "td"]){ > InputBox(uid: "Input", clocator: [title: "Google Search"]) > SubmitButton(uid: "Search", clocator: [name: "btnG", value: "Google > Search"]) > SubmitButton(uid: "ImFeelingLucky", clocator: [value: "I'm Feeling > Lucky"]) > > } * > > One possible interesting contribution in Webdriver is that it provides > native driver support for web browsers, which > might be more reliable than JavaScript driver. But I haven't really tried it > yet. > > If we split the web testing function into two parts, i.e., locate element > and act on element, the really contribution > of Tellurium is on the first part for the time being. Tellurium provides a > new concept of group locating, i.e., locate > the UI widget, which consists of a set of nested UI elements, at one > attempt, then cache them for later re-use. > Tellurium UI templates are very flexible to represent complex and dynamic > UIs. > > As you said, Tellurium and selenium v2 seem to tackle the same issues, but > with different approaches. Which one > is better or which features are better, we can wait and see. > > Thanks, > > JianOn Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > > I'm wondering what are the advantages of tellurium over selenium v2 > > which seems to tackle the same issues... > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "tellurium-users" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<tellurium-users%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/tellurium-users?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tellurium-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tellurium-users?hl=en.
