On Feb 17, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Marc Hadley wrote:
>>> This makes more sense. But I wouldn't call this a "generic client",
>>> this is just a "client framework". You're factoring out the common
>>> pieces that most clients would need; the actual clients are now in the
>>> scripts that have domain knowledge about the problem you're trying to
>>> solve.
>>
>> Actually it is not a framework! Really think it as a browser that is driven
>> by a human. BUT there is no human but some script that clicks the mouse and
>> scans the content for links. So it is nothing else but a hyper-generic
>> scriptable browser that actually does not show anything on the screen but
>> gets triggered by the script and answers to the script. Cannot see any part
>> of the definition of a framework here.
>>
> What you are describing sounds just like a framework to me, maybe its just a terminology thing. Essentially I write some code that calls into a [library|framework|whatever] when it needs to progress the state machine. The [library|framework|whatever] handles the details while relying on the external code to provide the necessary logic and metadata to drive the interaction.
We should devise a framework test ... If it looks like a framework, lets you write scripts like a framework and lets you execute scripts like a framework, it's probably a framework :)
Regardless of the naming issue, I'd be interested in taking it for a spin once it's ready. So let us know.
-- Santiago