On Sunday 23 April 2006 23:11, chromatic wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:46, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful. However, are
> > you implying that assuming we have that, one can write several different
> > test harnesses to process such test outputs? (I'm just guessing.)
>
> No.
>
I see.
> > Wouldn't that imply duplicate code, duplicate functionality and/or
> > duplicate effort?
>
> No, why should it?
>
I meant that writing several test harnesses would imply that. It was a
semi-rhetoric question.
> > Shouldn't we try to avoid that by making sure that we
> > have one *good* test harness codebase that can be customised using
> > plug-ins, and extensions?
>
> I don't believe that plugin systems reduce complexity in general. I do
> strongly believe in customization, but I remain unconvinced that plugins
> promote reuse and customization as strongly as, for example, roles and
> subclasses do.
I see. Well the final conclusion remains the same: we still need a good test
harness that we should be able to customise using roles, subclasses, plug-ins
or whatever.
I still don't see where the well-definition of the test output protocol has
anything to do with this issue. How would a well-defined test output protocol
help with making the test harness customisable?
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/
95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the
bottom 5%.
