Re: Brain Dump of Towards FIT 1.0 OpenSpace session

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charlie Poole" <[email protected]>
To: "FIT Developers" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 12:21 AM
Subject: RE: [Fit-dev] Brain Dump of Towards FIT 1.0 OpenSpace session


> I think you need native implementations for /some/ applications but
> probably not for all or most. But having a native implementation is
> probably a big factor in getting many people to adopt Fit.
>
> Besides, this is open source and people like to tinker with it.

One of the things I like about separating things is that there's one
code base to put most new features in. I think the native adapters
would be significantly more stable. They're also the place where there
would be the most variation.

John Roth
>
> Charlie
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jim Little
> > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 5:05 PM
> > To: 'FIT Developers'
> > Subject: RE: [Fit-dev] Brain Dump of Towards FIT 1.0 OpenSpace session
> >
> >
> > From: Al Chou
> > > Rather than ... having FIT re-implemented in numerous
> > > languages, why not have one core FIT that allows fixtures
> > > to be written in whatever language you choose?
> >
> > That's an interesting idea.  But would it work?  Consider that we need
> > to be able to write fixtures that interface with the system under test.
> > Those fixtures need to be in the programmer's native language, as he may
> > not know Java.  We also want (I presume) to make Fit inviting for people
> > to adopt... can we use this approach and still do that?
> >
> > Jim
> >