On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Charles S van der Linden <sqa...@gmail.com> wrote: > it might be better to include a few > references to various options.
I am open to that. If that happens, we should "just" agree on defaults. We should offer a bundle of tools to new users, and leave them the choice of changing some of the options later. > We're largely rolling our own page > objects in the project I'm on right now, based off some stuff from the > Watirmelon blog. I think the time has come for the project to have a page object gem. The time when everybody had to develop a browser driver and page object implementation should be behind us. > For the same reason as others regarding the > pageobject gem being just a bit overkill.. For a while I had my own page object implementation. When I saw the features of the page-object gem I have realized that I need most of them. I do not think it is overkill, even for smaller projects. I was a freelancer for the last year or so. I had smaller and bigger projects. I have some experience with not using page object pattern in a few projects, with using my own implementation in a few projects, and with using page-object gem in a few projects. I think the fact that I converted all projects to use page-object gem at the end speaks for itself. > This might be better handled via documentation rather than just > including another gem into the mix by default. I am not saying that "gem install watir" should install page-object gem. Although, I would vote for that. I do not see any harm in automatically installing a page object gem when installing watir, when we decide which gem are we going to support. Željko
_______________________________________________ Wtr-development mailing list Wtr-development@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-development
