Re: [MO-java-dev] InterfaceImplementor

[Jeff M. <je...@mk...>]

My problem is with the autogeneration, but with what is being generated.
I'm not happy with having the stub classes which are gradually
superseded, I think it could leave us with lots of classes which
eventually serve no useful purpose.

As a starting point for new mocks I don't have a problem with generating
the code, but creating stubs for everything is not something I'm happy
with.

But of course that's just my opinion, others may feel differently ;o)

On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 13:25, Scott Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:46:28AM +0100, Jeff Martin wrote:
> > Thanks for this, but I'm not sure it's really the approach we want to be
> > taking. I'd prefer to keep things a bit cleaner even if that means
> > having lots of methods with just notImplemented(); in them. 
> 
> I have to disagree - I don't think that's the clean approach. I don't like the
> idea of humans creating anything repetitive, anything that a computer could
> create. There's more possibility for error that way. Or even copying/pasting
> repetitive, automatically generated code. That code just serves to obscure
> where the real work is being done.
> 
> > You might be interested in
> > http://www.xpdeveloper.com/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi?MockMaker which takes your
> > approach a bit further. 
> > 
> > There is also some work being done on use java.lang.reflect.Proxy to
> > provide a default mock implementation. But I'm not aware of the details
> > of this yet.
> 
> Those are both interesting. I'll look more at them. 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> Scott Lamb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> Moc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
--