Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:14:12 -0500
See my comments inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julieta Lee [mailto:Julieta.Lee@PictureIQ.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:10 PM
> To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> WebUnit is fine if you're only going to test on a=20
> Microsoft platform. Quote
> from WebUnit docs: "You must have The Microsoft JavaVM.=20
> If you wish to
> build webunit you will need to install the Microsoft=20
> Java Development Kit."
Yes, the current state of WebUnit requires a lot of MS stuff.
However, the architecture enables adapters to be written for any other
(and would thus not require any MS stuff).
The maintainer told me yesterday that he will start soon on support for
Netscape on Linux.
> I personally prefer HttpUnit as it is not tied to any=20
> specific browser or
> engine. =20
> However, it would be nice if Webtest would include=20
> used Webtest successfully to automate all my web=20
> testing, except for the
> for our test team since
> most of the testers here can't use Java to write their=20
> scripts. =20
When I get the time, I'm going to create a version of
Canoo WebTest that talks to WebUnit (instead of HttpUnit).
> I've spent lots of time evaluating HTMLUnit and HttpUnit. Both=20
> tools have some
> fully stable. So I
> decided to wait until the stable releases come out,=20
Keep in mind that the HttpUnit maintainer has stated that he=20
> especially since some of
> the source code is subject to change without notice. I=20
> am also eagerly
> awaiting to see what the good people at Canoo decide to=20
The way Canoo WebTest is architected, it does not seem like=20
in the http engine, which is currently HttpUnit.
Canoo folks, what's your opinion?
> WebTest mailing list