Confirmed users
753
edits
User:Automatedtester/FennecDriver: Difference between revisions
User:Automatedtester/FennecDriver (view source)
Revision as of 15:19, 27 September 2011
, 27 September 2011→Option 2
(→Goal) |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
The next option would be to create a lightweight XPI that would do XmlHttpRequest to the Server on the client side asking for the next available command. This would invert the Client/Server approach that is currently in Selenium WebDriver.This approach would mean that we can keep the XPI lightweight and keep the device's memory footprint really small and not have a jetty service running. | The next option would be to create a lightweight XPI that would do XmlHttpRequest to the Server on the client side asking for the next available command. This would invert the Client/Server approach that is currently in Selenium WebDriver.This approach would mean that we can keep the XPI lightweight and keep the device's memory footprint really small and not have a jetty service running. | ||
The XPI would help override services that are needed for Selenium, like Certificates, and help inject native events into the browser. | |||
The server part on the right of the image below would understand that JSON Wire Protocol meaning that we can give to the community and would get .NET, Java, Python and Ruby support straight away. | The server part on the right of the image below would understand that JSON Wire Protocol meaning that we can give to the community and would get .NET, Java, Python and Ruby support straight away. | ||
[[File:Option2or3.png]] | [[File:Option2or3.png]] | ||
===Option 2a=== | |||
If the XPI can be removed and we can speak directly to the JS Remote Debugger I would take this option. The main criteria for 2 is to move the server off the device and onto another host. This could be the same machine as running the tests. | |||
==Option 3== | ==Option 3== | ||