I think picking a page-object gem to support is fine but it's not clear to me that Jeff's gem is the right one.
For example, the one we use is different in some very basic ways. Ours is agnostic to the implementation so we don't care what is driving the "page". We use it for watir, selenium, editing XML files, calling WIN32OLE methods for our own DLLs, etc. For us, it's just an abstraction for grouping getters and setters and keeping the implementation separated from the usage of that implementation. Maybe this is a good topic to address in the Watir conference next year - we can have a page-object smackdown! Hugh On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jarmo <[email protected]> wrote: > One more thing. I don't find it appropriate of adding page-object under > watir organization in GitHub. Why? Because page-object is not > watir-specific gem, but it is watir and selenium specific. That's one of > the reasons i'm not planning to add my own page object gem under watir > organization either. I would vote for it only if Jeff would split that gem > up into 3 separate gems - page-object, page-object-selenium and > page-object-watir. page-object-watir could be located under watir > organization, because it is watir-specific. Any thoughts on that > distinction? > > Just my two cents. > > J. > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jarmo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have to admit that i haven't used Jeff's gem, but have looked at its >> source code some time ago. One thing that scares me with his gem is that it >> seems like a whole new and big framework built on top of watir/selenium >> having a quite complex API (in my opinion) and codebase. On the other hand >> i'm on the verge of releasing my own page-object gem, which i have been >> using in my own projects. Its main goals are really simple API (really easy >> learning curve) and supporting of all possible frameworks - >> watir-webdriver, watir-classic, selenium, capybara, whatever. And the total >> codebase is ~100 lines. That might sound that it has a lot of less >> functionality and maybe you're right, but i tend to like systems which are >> easier to understand. >> >> I'm not trying to say that this means everyone should prefer one to >> another and that complex systems are definitely less good, but i'm trying >> to say that instead of declaring something as a de facto standard we should >> rather give users a choice between multiple ones. >> >> Having said that i have also "revise watir readme" in my todo list where >> i would list all the relevant gems in its readme. >> >> Jarmo >> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Željko Filipin <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> What do you think about adding page-object gem[1] to watir project? >>> >>> I have used it in a few projects for clients and I can not imagine using >>> watir without page-object gem anymore. >>> >>> I have talked with Jeff Morgan, gem creator, and he said: "i am >>> interested". >>> >>> If we vote "yes", nothing much would change. We would note somewhere on >>> watir.com that page-object gem is part of the project, and we would add >>> the gem to watir organization[2] at github. I think the license[3] is >>> compatible. >>> >>> If we make it happen, I think that would be a step in the right >>> direction. I think the time has come, watir project should really have a >>> page object gem. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Željko >>> -- >>> [1] https://github.com/cheezy/page-object >>> [2] https://github.com/watir >>> [3] https://github.com/cheezy/page-object/blob/master/LICENSE >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wtr-development mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-development >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wtr-development mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-development >
_______________________________________________ Wtr-development mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-development
