Now you're missing my point. 8-) Too bad I don't like fish.
If it were as simple as JUnit missing one or two little pieces of
function then I would try to get them to add it. But from what I saw
JUnit's entire premise for testing is different than what I want. It's
just
a matter of taste - they're focused on *Java* unit testing, I'm focused
on a broader any-language system testing (even though I hate calling
it system testing). I know that I'll probably never convince you of it,
but I do believe that they are radically different paradigms. And if
it turns out that a lot of people agree with you then it'll never be
accepted by Apache and life will go on...
-Dug
ps. Sorry about the "Jo*h*n", I noticed it just after I hit the "send"
button.
Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 02/11/2001 05:08:55 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: Test Infrastructure Project Proposal
on 2/11/01 1:15 PM, "Doug Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (John, combined response to your two notes):
JON. Please spell my name correctly. :-)
> I didn't just read that one line on the Web Site - but I was using
> it as an example of what I think the problem is with JUnit. However,
> that being said, I will be honest enough to admit that I didn't go too
> much further than download the product do a quick look through
> the docs so please correct me if I'm wrong but you have to write
> code in order to test with JUnit, right?
> To me testcases need to be so easy to write that people won't
> look at it like a pain-in-the-*ss-chore that they have to do just
> to satisfy some little check-list.
That is a great feature to add to JUnit.
> Perhaps JUnit can be extended
> to solve all the worlds problems but from what I saw it required
> more work from a tester than I think non-programming-testers
> would want to do. But that's just my opinion.
> -Dug
Again, I think that you have totally missed my point because what you are
repeating back to me isn't along with what I'm telling you. :-( I will try
one more time before I ask Sam to go down to your office an explain it to
you. :-)
Lets use Sam as an example here:
Ant didn't allow him to override classpaths the way that he wanted to be
able to in order to support the fact that no one is using Ant properly with
regards to classpaths (I'm sure I'm one of those people, so yes, I'm
bashing
myself. <smile>). Instead of creating his own version of Ant, he simply
added the functionality into Ant to allow him to do what he wanted. He
worked with the lead developers to explain the problem and find a
resolution.
The point being that:
It doesn't matter that JUnit doesn't do what you want. The fact of the
matter is that instead of creating yet another project to do Unit testing,
you should work with the JUnit people to help mold JUnit into what you
want.
The reason being:
It creates a better product and a better community when we all work
together.
Now, if the JUnit people didn't want to have that functionality built in or
if their license wasn't compatible (fyi, it is the IBM Public License), I
could understand doing a fork, but that obviously doesn't seem to be the
case.
Conclusion:
You have no excuse for not working with them to help improve their product
other than your lack of wanting to work together with people.
If that conclusion is really true, then please don't ask to have your
project hosted here because this forum is about working together.
:-)
love,
-jon
--
If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take
your pain to new levels. --Anonymous
<http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/> && <http://java.apache.org/turbine/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
