Guiding the Albatross to the VW-Seaside? [was: [Seaside]Seasidefor VisualWorks]

[Boris Popov]

I would hope so seeing as that's where majority of development is happening right now and cincom focus will first be on better integration and only then on seaside itself if I understand correctly.

Cheers!

-Boris
(Sent from a BlackBerry)

----- Original Message -----
From: seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org <seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
To: Seaside - general discussion <seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Wed Jun 20 22:37:01 2007
Subject: Re: Guiding the Albatross to the VW-Seaside? [was: [Seaside]Seasidefor VisualWorks]

So the current development model with development happening in Squeak
and versions for other dialects being "generated" from there will
stay?

Philippe

2007/6/21, Michael Lucas-Smith <mlucas-smith at cincom.com>:
> Yes, that's very high on the list of laws for this project. We're not
> forking Seaside.
>
> Michael
>
> Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > I'd like to see Cincom maintain squeak compatibility.
> >
> > Ron Teitelbaum
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:seaside-
> >> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lucas-Smith
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:15 PM
> >> To: Seaside - general discussion
> >> Subject: Re: Guiding the Albatross to the VW-Seaside? [was: [Seaside]
> >> Seasidefor VisualWorks]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Some UI testing tool like Watir (Ruby, see [1][2]) or Albatross (Squeak,
> >>> see [3][4])on VW would be nice.
> >>> I am aware of the Seaside Testing Tool from David Shaffer[5], but a
> >>> framework capable of replaying JS scripts and showing the stuff
> >>>
> >> happening
> >>
> >>> in some browser would be nice - both for the test driven developers and
> >>> their customers.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe guiding the Albatross to the VW-Seaside would be an option?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> This is nice. When we did web testing before I moved to Cincom we
> >> utilised the known properties of the server side code instead of
> >> bouncing back to the web browser itself. Mostly because of:
> >> a) Speed of running the tests
> >> b) Ease of writing the tests
> >>
> >> In the end we wanted to do testing like this - so I whole heartedly
> >> support this idea. It's going on to the project backlog. Thanks for
> >> bringing it to my attention.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Seaside mailing list
> >> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Seaside mailing list
> > Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seaside mailing list
> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside/attachments/20070620/1a66d469/attachment.htm