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%.