On 7/1/06, Steve Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 08:45:02PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> This might seem like an odd question but will it be tightly tied to
> TAP or will it be possible to use another protocol or an extension to
> TAP?
Pluggable testing protocols, perhaps. They would need to follow some
similar ground rules, though.
Non TAP protocols are not a design goal.
However, making it flexible enough to handle future versions of TAP,
whatever they may be, may make it flexible enough to handle completely
different protocols. Of course, lord knows what those protocols may
be. There are at least two approaches I could think of that fit the
existing design. One is to replace the tokenizer. The other is to
create a TAP source which converts from your protocol into TAP. The
latter is probably easiest and smoothest.
