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. > Wouldn't that imply duplicate code, duplicate functionality and/or > duplicate effort? No, why should it? > 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. -- c
