The main advantage I think in this approach is that you can take benefit of IDE completion, and "magic" methods (assert, verify) are not generated, because they depend of "how" you want to use it.
Well, the reason of this message is first to share it with you, but more specifically for asking you how could I enhance this library ?
I'm not satisfied of file upload, for example: you need to specify a location on the server, or an URL. Isn't it possible to upload directly the file ?
Well, I want to improve this library because there is a big lack in PHP concerning Selenium, and the Selenium solution is, as far as I see, the more robust on the market.
Thanks for sharing. I'm not a PHP guy, but I've used the PHPUnit_Selenium library a couple of times and would love to try out yours in the future. Regards looking forward, I think the main thing you should be thinking about is Se2 and webdriver's API. Se2/Webdriver is where everything is currently being done and the PHP landscape there is still a little bit unclear. Here's a blog post from Adam<http://element34.ca/blog/a-survey-of-the-php-and-selenium-landscape>that from what I've seen best describes the situation. I think a great contribution would be to help making the current state of things better and clearer for new PHP users, either contributing to the best library out there or making a definitive one :)
Best, Santi
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Alexandre Salomé <alexandre.sal...@gmail.com
> The main advantage I think in this approach is that you can take benefit > of IDE completion, and "magic" methods (assert, verify) are not generated, > because they depend of "how" you want to use it.
> Well, the reason of this message is first to share it with you, but more > specifically for asking you how could I enhance this library ?
> I'm not satisfied of file upload, for example: you need to specify a > location on the server, or an URL. Isn't it possible to upload directly the > file ?
> Well, I want to improve this library because there is a big lack in PHP > concerning Selenium, and the Selenium solution is, as far as I see, the > more robust on the market.
> Waiting for your advice on it,
> Best regards,
> Alexandre
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Selenium Developers" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/selenium-developers/-/v2WQe_MdMnQJ. > To post to this group, send email to selenium-developers@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > selenium-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/selenium-developers?hl=en.
* Also sprach Alexandre Salomé <alexandre.sal...@gmail.com>:
> It's a work in progress, I'll give you news.
You might want to have a look at how the Ruby bindings (and possibly the Python bindings) are doing this. The Ruby bindings are currently structured this way:
It implements the Selenium RC-related stuff in /selenium/client, and the WebDriver/RemoteWebDriver implementations in /selenium/webdriver. IMO it's a very well organized and structured set of bindings.