On 4/12/13 12:28 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>> Point of order: why do you seem so opposed to this contribution? I've
>> put a lot of effort in it, and it serves a function that I don't see
>> any of the other tools being able to without serious modification...
>> It's not like this project is drowning in active contributors, so why
>> look a gift horse in the mouth?
>
> Yes... please ignore that. It's been a really long week. Sorry :-(
>
OK, I will. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a negative person. I
definitely appreciate your efforts especially since you are doing it in your
spare time.
That said, I think I should be able to raise questions about your commits.
I expect you and the rest of the community to challenge anything I do. I am
certainly capable of not being aware of some important fact.
On this particular subject, I am wary about "another" test framework. I was
hoping when FlexUnit arrived we would be able to leverage it and maybe parts
of Mustella to test the AS and JS code. Mustella already knows how to
launch a browser (it doesn't have to launch a standalone player). In
thinking ahead several years, if FlexJS grows to do 80% of what Flex can
today, I would not want to have to rewrite all of those mustella tests, so
it would be great to be able to use them.
It isn't obvious to me that a compiler test suite needs to execute code in a
runtime. But certainly, after changing the compiler and passing its Junit
tests, it would be good to re-run whatever test suite we create for testing
changes to the ASJS code.
But again, these are just "concerns" and not a veto or firm opposition. And
again, thanks for all the work you've been doing.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
