Hi:
You wrote:
> Can you explain what you are looking for? It seems
> to me that Cactus is first and foremost an in-container
> testing tool. Why would you want to turn it into something else?
>
> I have a feeling that I am missing the point here, but it
> feels almost as though you have found a hammer you really
> like and now wish it could turn screws as well.
LOL. But this amusing characterization somewhat dodges the point,
which is that Cactus is pretty good at one kind of testing, and
would be an even better tool if it could do another kind of
testing.
As the apparent author explains on the mock objects vs. in container
testing page (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/cactus/mockobjects.html)
he is not averse to moving Cactus towards the mock objects strategy
precisely because it offers a more comprehensive approach and because
it tends to reinforce good design and implementation habits.
I personally would like to see both choices available from within
one tool, for several reasons:
(1) it will increase the userbase and thus the level of improvements
made available for this tool;
(2) it is more likely to satisfy the disparate needs of developers
(3) each mode helps to highlight problems in the other. For example,
an in-container test that suceeds while a mock test fails may
point out an error in a container-level mock object.
I am sure that more reasons can be adduced in favor of this. Against it
is the argument of simplicity over complexity and the "one tool for one
job" philosophy.
I am interested in an amplification of your thoughts about this.
S-
