I agree. Frank.
"Andy Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/20/2007 01:14:51 PM: > > I would certainly prefer to continue with junit. > > There are frameworks such as cactus, that allow junit tests to be run in > J2EE environments, and if vendors need the ability to run the tests in > some other environment that is not supported by junit or cactus then > they always have the option of developing their own test runners or > tweaking the junit code to fit their requirements. This does seem like > an edge case and it would seem appropriate for those users to invest the > effort to solve the problem rather than putting an extra burden on > developing the general purpose CTS. > > Thanks, > > Andy. > > -----Original Message----- > From: kelvin goodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20 April 2007 17:19 > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when > classes don't inherit from TestCase > > The Junit tooling is so useful I'd be loath to drop it as the harness > that the Tuscany implementation uses for exercising the tests. I'm going > to do a bit of playing to see what solutions are practical, but I'm > concerned that we may be considering putting significant effort into a > goal that's rather too theoretical, as junit seems so ubiquitous. > > Regards, Kelvin. > > On 20/04/07, Andy Grove < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip/> > > One option is to stop using junit completely and replicate the useful > > features in a minimal test framework that supports parameterized tests > > > e.g. we could introduce a CTSTestCase interface: > > > > > > <snip/> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
