On 28/05/2011 19:09, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:08:39 +0100 Lyle <..hidden..> wrote:I'm not sure I like a web-based interface. This makes automated installations and testing much harder.Wouldn't Test::WWW::Mechanize make this pretty straight forward?Ugh. That's really a bad approach; it means you need a working web server before you can even do any unit tests. I thought you were talking about testing against a web based interface that the end user is ready to use, or an already setup LSMB to ensure it was working properly. If not, people have been using Test::WWW:::Mechanize for years without a working web server: http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/32165 http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-WWW-Mechanize-Catalyst/ I guess it depends on what you are used to. Some users will not be used to installing and making packages on the command line, so for them a web interface would likely be more intuitive.It's far easier to wrap a command-line tool in a Web interface than coerce a Web interface to be usable from the command-line. Really, all the work should be done by Perl modules, which can then be layered by both a command-line tool and a Web interface. No question :) Lyle |