Hey Chuck, Especially with Watir 6, there are some good synchronization reasons to prefer Watir over default selenium, even if not taking advantage of the improved encapsulation of the subclasses or the more advanced locator strategies. Though, not so many that it might not be worth it for him to roll his own at that point. Depends on how much else in the Watir ecosystem he is relying on.
Titus On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 11:20:28 AM UTC-6, Chuck van der Linden wrote: > > bah... need to be able to edit... I confused using .link method of watir > with the :link locator type of Selenium... please disregard the confusion > over that sentence. > > Point being however that you seem wedded to directly using .element and > selenium selection methods, so the question of why even use Watir as > opposed to Selenium, given your preferences, still exists. > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 9:17:10 AM UTC-8, Chuck van der Linden > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:29:52 PM UTC-8, [email protected] >> <javascript:> wrote: >>> >>> Can you please pay a little attention to the ongoing conversation? The >>> conversation is not about using element() or using link() function, the >>> conversation is about performance issue while I use visible text. I am >>> ready to use visible text If it does the good performance but it's not >>> doing it, I am trying to click a link which takes minutes to click that >>> link but when I use link locator it clicks instantly. >>> >> >> You say that, yet every code example I see from you uses .element >> >> Then we have statements like this: >> >>> Yes, I agree using b.link() increases the performance, But I completely >>> against the idea of not using the link: locator of selenium. >> >> >> (given the sentence makes no sense if parsed using the double negative >> (in which case you would already be using .link, which you are not), I >> presume that 'not' in the above is a typo) >> >> So despite people telling you to use .link, you seem insistent on using >> .element. which is basically the same as using raw Webdriver instead of >> Watir. So frankly I don't think my question is that out of line. If you >> insist on using .element, and are as you stated 'completely against the >> idea' of using the watir API, then why use Watir and not just use webdriver >> directly? >> >> In terms of performance: >> As Titus asked earlier, can you provide a code example that demonstrates >> the performance difference you are claiming to see? not a discussion of >> code, but actual code against an actual site. >> > -- -- Before posting, please read http://watir.com/support. In short: search before you ask, be nice. [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/watir-general [email protected] --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Watir General" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
