[PEPr] Comment on Testing::Selenium
| From: | Shin Ohno | Date: | Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:44:30 +0000 |
| Subject: | [PEPr] Comment on Testing::Selenium | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-43676@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Shin Ohno (http://pear.php.net/user/shin) has commented on the proposal for Testing::Selenium.
Comment:
Hi,
When I developped this package I have 4 things what I should do with this
in my mind. If I could get any comments about them, I appreciate it.
A: How to implement the function of HTTP Requests?
I put the three ways to use HTTP Request, which are PEAR HTTP_Request,
curl, and PHP native functions(fopen and stream_get_contents).
To be honest, I think PHP native functions are good enought to implement
it, because SRC(Selenium Remote Control) Server does not care any HTTP
Header, but just parameter it receives. So, using PEAR HTTP_Request and
curl might be overspec.
B: Which section should this package belong?
There is Testing category in PEAR, but there are only PHPUnit and
PHPUnit2, and they are in top directory and do not belong to any sections,
I think this Package should belong to Testing, but I'm not sure which
section to belong.
C: Package the SRC Server or not?
Because this package depends on the SRC Server, maybe it is a good idea to
package it, too, and the script to start it, too.
D: Should this package belong to PEAR or OpenQA?
When you download the SRC from OpenQA site, it comes with SRC Server and
SRC Clients(Ruby, Python, Perl, C#, Java), Because they do not have PHP
Client, I developped it. But should this package belongs to PEAR? Well,
CPAN has a module for Selenium RC Client, so I thought proposing PEAR is a
good idea, too.
Thanks
Proposal information:
http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=413
--
Sent by PEPr, the automatic proposal system at http://pear.php.net