RE: [xsl] feasibility of HTML input

[didoss@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Yes, I'm looking into that, so that the existing stuff is unaffected and I can proceed with the enhancement.

My concern is that the current output takes a lot of space - hence my only copying off the very top layer for historical - so I have to see whether I can output to both without taking twice the space,...I know space shouldn't be the hot commodity these days, but it is at my office,...

I'm also not sure of the time impact of producing both outputs, so will have to be cautious of that as well.  We run a nightlybuild that already takes longer than it should, so I don't want to make it worse.

Most of the developers probably would have no problem if I completely switched the results over to xml, but I think the business analysts and project managers would have problems reading the output.


thanks,
Dianne
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Jerry Kimmel" <jkimmel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Dianne, 
> 
> If it is possible to have JUnit and Emma produce XML and you do not want
> to interfere with your existing outputs, why don't you create both HTML
> and XML from your existing tools. That way you'll have your reports in
> both formats.
> 
> ------------------------------------------
>  Jerry Kimmel - jkimmel at vasont dot com 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: didoss@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:didoss@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 1:06 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [xsl] feasibility of HTML input
> 
> David -
> 
> I was hoping not to interfere with the existing outputs,...I can go down
> that path if this one is not worthwhile.
> 
> Dianne
> 
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: David Wright <dave-xsl@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> > 
> > I'm a bit puzzled - a quick google suggests that it isn't hard to get
> both 
> > JUnit and Emma to produce XML reports, as well as HTML. You'd be much 
> > better off parsing that, than the user-friendly HTML. Is there a
> reason 
> > why you can't?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > David Wright