> > There's one last piece that I'm still unclear on which your article did > not mention--reponse handlers. Is this where the two paths diverge? I'm > not sure that I see much difference between the way you do it and the > highly magical stuff.
well, that's the next step. instead of calling plan() from within the test script, you can call plan $r, tests => 5; from within a handler() subroutine in a PerlHandler. but again, you don't need to use the magical parts of Apache-Test to autogenerated all the foo. that is, you can still write your own foo.t and extra.conf.in or whatever else you need. if you understand that no matter what wrapper you use - Apache-Test, Test::More, etc - in the end they are all just feeding "1..5" and "ok" to Test::Harness, then it all kinda makes sense - of course you can plan() and ok() from either a PerlHandler or *.t, so long as the proper sequence of data is printed to STDOUT. HTH --Geoff
