Re: Passing Form Objects Via Remoting

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Allen Anderson (allen_at_sparkysystems.com)
Date: 04/13/04 

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:41:04 -0600

you've just posted the first good reason I've ever heard to remote a
form. heh. That's actually a good idea. We do XP programming here
as well so we do tons of units tests and although we don't currently
do a lot of UI testing in that, remoting the form would be a great way
to do it.

wrapping the collection and making that serializable is indeed a bit
of a kludgy way to go. If I were you I would add my test routines to
the form and region them off. As a general rule in remoting, you
should try not to move things across remoting unless you have to.
Best to try and do what you need in the methods of the remoted object.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:30:36 -0500, "John Bowman" <<Remove this before
reply> john.bowman@thermo.com> wrote:

>Allen,
>
>Thanks for the response. Your points are well taken. I did manage to make it
>work in the test app by creating a serializable wrapper object that contains
>a reference to the form in question and a serializable custom collection
>object, where the collection is really a collection of references to the
>control objects on the form. Admittedly not very clean/desirable and
>redundant... but possible none the less. The reason I'm looking into this is
>that on the surface, it would seem a potential mechanism (if it were more
>staightforward and clean) for automating the UI testing of an application.
>Basically, if you can pass accross the main UI form object into the driver
>program, then you can completely control the application externally. Test
>cases can be created and executed..., changing the UI later is easier to
>update in the test cases, etc. Unit testing is one thing and is important,
>but UI testing also inherently tests the system as a whole. Just probing for
>possible alternatives at this point. Thanks again nfor the info.
>
>John
>

Relevant Pages

  • Asynchronous Concurrency was Re: Fenceless atomic RMW
    ... The formalism allows, at least in theory, for formal correctness checking of concurrent programs. ... All of these models reason about some idealization of the actual hardware, and discussions about concurrency almost invariably confuse and/or conceal two kinds of mischief: that the Turing tape and reasoning about Turing machines cannot apply without modification to parallel programming, and that all idealizations make assumptions about the behavior of hardware that violate the laws of physics. ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: Asynchronous Concurrency was Re: Fenceless atomic RMW
    ... language, compiler, and hardware, I conclude that no realistic system ... easier for me to reason about concurrency is f-nets, ... Tolerant Programming with F-Nets and Software Cabling ... Asynch is all around us. ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: pid_t data type
    ... "The implementation shall support one or more programming environments ... then it *is* save to store pid_t's in a long. ... is a big reason to use pid_t's. ... Because these usually return ints, ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: Delphi in more schools (was Re: Microsoft here I come)
    ... and reading up on programming "stuff" I've sorta figured ... come across is that they stopped reading a long ... If you cannot reason well, I'm not sure doing logic courses ... I hired only one new CS graduate. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Check a radio button
    ... Statements about writing code from scratch without using wizards, ... emulate sequential programming in an asynchronous event-based systems, ... He added gratuitous complexity for the wrong reason. ... I've watched products fail because of bad decisions, bad coding practices, ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)