Michael Jakl wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 22:59, Bernd
Fondermannbernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 13:48, Michael Jakljakl.mich...@gmail.com wrote:
Since the clients run under the same hood, checking whether a message
arrives within a certain amount of
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Bernd Fondermannbf_...@brainlounge.de wrote:
I kicked this off because Niklas plans to implement the Ping XEP and I
assumed he's looking for a way to write proper tests for it. And I just
wanted to point out that there might be good ways to do that without
Hi!
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 22:48, Niklas Gustavssonnik...@protocol7.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Bernd Fondermannbf_...@brainlounge.de
wrote:
But we're kind of talking very theoretical here (otherwise my answer
could have been shorter and there'd be somebody still listening
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 13:48, Michael Jakljakl.mich...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 22:48, Niklas Gustavssonnik...@protocol7.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Bernd Fondermannbf_...@brainlounge.de
wrote:
But we're kind of talking very theoretical here (otherwise
Hey
Over at FtpServer, we run a lot of unit tests but starting the server
and then letting a client (in our case commons-net) interact with it,
testing for correct outcomes. I'm thinking something similar would be
a good idea for Vysper but fail to find any such tests (besides
Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
Hey
Over at FtpServer, we run a lot of unit tests but starting the server
and then letting a client (in our case commons-net) interact with it,
testing for correct outcomes. I'm thinking something similar would be
a good idea for Vysper but fail to find any such
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Bernd Fondermannbf_...@brainlounge.de wrote:
For testing new functionality (mostly handlers), starting the server is
not neccessary (and that's a big plus). Just testing the handler in
isolation is usually sufficient.
I should have pointed out that I did not
Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Bernd Fondermannbf_...@brainlounge.de
wrote:
For testing new functionality (mostly handlers), starting the server is
not neccessary (and that's a big plus). Just testing the handler in
isolation is usually sufficient.
I should
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Bernd Fondermannbf_...@brainlounge.de wrote:
[snipped some good arguments]
XMPP is not only specified for socket transport. It's defined BOSH (over
HTTP) as well. I'm sure you wouldn't want to double every e2e test for
both transports?
Yeah, I've worked a
