Mark Hindess wrote:
But this doesn't mean George is wrong! Because *if* there was a publically accessible Internet server that already had Apache httpd, twoftpd (my favourite ftp server this week), Dante socks, etc, then the scenario I like to optimise becomes possible.
And doesn't work offline.
The effort of setting up one hosting server is definitely cheaper than the effort of implementing stubs - I know because I set up the server George tests against and it didn't take much time at all.
Right - but how about just having it as part of the setup for test, to run it locally, and then teardown at the end of testing?
Having one server means we wont get 1000's of users asking Apache httpd, twoftpd, Dante socks configuration questions on our mailing lists. It also means we have a way to see the other half of the results - that is, the server logs. (Stubs should make this easier and this cost should be considered too but if we ran the server we could make this easier.)
It also means it isn't easy for anyone to tweak it. [snip]
I think it basically comes down to whether or not we can provide a central server. I'm not sure it's a simple question but for me this question is key to this issue. Or perhaps I'm optimising for the wrong scenario?
I think so. I think we do want a simple, easy local server so people that want to add new tests can (and test them before giving to us), etc...
I guess the big question is - how hard is it to run locally? Is there a list or such that defines all the things needed for http/ftp/socks?
geir
