Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Discussions > users > RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features?

maxq
Discussion topic

Back to topic list

RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features?

Author pombredanne
Full name Philippe Ombredanne
Date 2004-04-12 10:14:47 PDT
Message So now we have a start of a plan...
What does James Cooper thinks of this?
--
Cheers
Philippe

philippe ombredanne | nexB - Open IT Asset Management
1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
http://www.nexb.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Cohen [mailto:fcohen at pushtotest dot com]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:07 AM
> To: users at maxq dot tigris dot org
> Subject: Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features?
>
>
> I like the idea too! And would like to participate in the design.
>
> By the way, there is another commercial company:
>
> http://www.soft.com/eValid/
>
> that signed a license with Microsoft and uses IE as its Mozilla to
> accomplish a test recorder environment.
>
> In my opinion, the DOM inspector is nice to have to not
> necessary. The
> bigger issue will be to create a GUI that rides along with Mozilla to
> let the user control/edit the scripts as they are being recorded. I'm
> thinking that most users will want to use the actual HMTL forms in
> Mozilla to interact with the host. Also we need something to
> present a
> simple GUI that controls playing a recorded session. For this I
> contribute the design for TestMaker 5's recorder. I sent Philippe the
> design document (that includes a screen shot walking tour of
> the GUI.)
> I'll post this to the PushToTest site for your info.
>
> Also, at some point a Wiki for this new generation of MaxQ would be
> handy. I can offer that on the PushToTest Web site if needed.
>
> -Frank
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2004, at 9:36 AM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
>
> > Michael Peters wrote:
> >> Wow! I really like this idea. If we write it as a Mozilla
> >> plugin then it
> >> wouldn't need the proxy right?
> > Yep. No more need for proxies, since this would take within the
> > browser.
> > Many products in that space are done for screen scraping.
> > The closest I have seen in concept is
> > http://www.jstudio.d​e/English/LogOnENG.h​tm , a commercial
> product that
> > IMHO falls short of being easy to use, to say the least. It is not
> > using
> > dom inspector, but similar function you can mimic using IE controls
> > (active accessibility).
> > It is also geared more toward web wrapper generation (which is
> > something
> > which we could also target as a transform : i.e. extractor/wrapper
> > exposed as a web services, based on a transform of a recording...)
> >
> >
> >> If we did it right, we could make the
> >> assertions point and click easy. I also like the xml idea. Writing
> >> transformations into other languages and testing formats
> >> would be easy from
> >> that point. I second these ideas. Writing plugins for mozilla
> >> seems to be
> >> fairly straightforward (I've looked at the XUL stuff before).
> >>
> >> I like either name. maxq++ gives props to the original
> >> project but either is
> >> fine with me. Keep me in touch as I would love to be involved.
> >
> > I had a discussion last week with one of the maintainers of the DOM
> > isnpector.
> > Here it is:
> > Christopher A. Aillon wrote:
> >> On 03/25/2004 10:22 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> >>> Thanks for your answer. I will dive more into the code, and
> >> may ask some
> >>> guidance here and there.
> >>> Is the DOM wrapper mostly javascript and xul?
> >>
> >> The wrapper can be accessed using script. See the W3 docs. Our
> >> implementation of most of it is in C++ native code. Look in
> >> mozilla/dom
> >> and mozilla/content/ of which I am also a peer.
> >>
> >>> I would have hopped some high docs, or a unit tests suite.
> >>> I will probably setup the project either on sourceforge or Tigris.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The API is very well documented at the W3 site. I
> recommend reading
> >> that over any doc we could possibly provide. I believe they also
> >> include a test suite.
> > The key to have a good tool, is to make it really easy and simple to
> > use. Like a camcorder.
> > I have written at least two GUI recorders/code generators
> in the past,
> > and the approach that worked best was to make a lot of
> assumptions and
> > heuristics to get the stuff working most of the time, and
> always have
> > the ability to override if it does not work.
> > If the tool is easy and can genearte decent stuff fast,
> then the users
> > are able to generate a lot of stuff until they get it right
> by trial
> > and
> > error. But they get feedback fast.
> >
> >
> > Code wise, the point is that the stuff is mostly C++, and
> looks like
> > out
> > of the traditional plug-in kind of API.
> > So maybe we could have a hook into their code, and write
> Java or Python
> > from that point on.
> > Using C++ only for the GUI stuff, and capturing events.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers
> > Philippe
> >
> > philippe ombredanne | nexB - Open IT Asset Management
> > 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
> > http://www.nexb.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@ma​xq.tigris.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at maxq dot tigris dot org
> >
> >
> --
> Frank Cohen, PushToTest, http://www.PushToTest.com, phone:
> 408 374 7426
> Enterprise test automation solutions to check and monitor Web-enabled
> applications for functionality, scalability and reliability.
>
>
> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@ma​xq.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at maxq dot tigris dot org
>
>
>
>



--------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@ma​xq.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at maxq dot tigris dot org

« Previous message in topic | 6 of 14 | Next message in topic »

Messages

Show all messages in topic

[maxq-users] anybody want these features? petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> 2004-04-12 08:11:19 PDT
     RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? pombredanne Philippe Ombredanne 2004-04-12 08:44:52 PDT
         RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> 2004-04-12 09:03:17 PDT
             RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? pombredanne Philippe Ombredanne 2004-04-12 09:36:59 PDT
                 Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? fcohen Frank Cohen 2004-04-12 10:07:00 PDT
                     RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? pombredanne Philippe Ombredanne 2004-04-12 10:14:47 PDT
                         Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com> James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com> 2004-04-13 16:35:28 PDT
                             Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? fcohen Frank Cohen 2004-04-13 16:49:41 PDT
                                 RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? pombredanne Philippe Ombredanne 2004-04-13 20:21:54 PDT
                                 Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com> James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com> 2004-04-13 21:36:09 PDT
                                     Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? fcohen Frank Cohen 2004-04-14 07:10:10 PDT
                                         Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> 2004-04-14 07:56:46 PDT
                     Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> 2004-04-12 12:22:13 PDT
                         RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? pombredanne Philippe Ombredanne 2004-04-13 16:26:42 PDT
Messages per page: