From: Gilles D. <rh...@wa...> - 2002-08-23 12:44:59
|
im really sorry about the previous post. this is the right one. could the = moderator please delete the previous one =3F ---- Message starts here --- no, thats not what i mean : my MockConnection is a MockConnection just as it is now. Although my MockConnectionFactory would create the MockPreparedStatement and the MockPreparedStatementFactory would create the MockResultSet. calling verify on myMockConnection would call verify myMockPreparedStatement which in turn would verify myMockResultSet. the goal under the request is to statically describe a reusable test configuration, i.e. describe the configuration of mock components in a xml file - in a kilim way (http://www.objectweb.org/kilim). so instead of creating and configuring MockObjects directly in the TestCase i would delegate creation and configuration through a call of type myMockConnection =3D myConnectionFactory.getConnection("MockConnectionThatBehaves LikeThat"); and i wouldnt worry about instantiating or configuring neither the MockResultSet nor the MockPreparedStatement anymore. i think this is relevant since behaviour is often shared. This could allow me to call the verify method *just* on myMockConnection. that approach is arguable, like i said in my previous post, since it implies that the TestCase lost a bit of control upon the test environment configuration. however i have the intuition that it would be of much help. And also even if you dont agree with the cascading verify idea, perhaps you would with the factory one (i found kilim to be very useful) =3F anyway im always interested in your point of view. thanks for your reply, -- gd >Messsage du 23/08/2002 12:30 >De : Nat Pryce <nat...@b1...> >A : Gilles DODINET <rh...@wa...> >Copie =E0 : >Objet : Re: [Mockobjects-java-users] Feature-request > > If I understand you, you want your MockConnection to create your > MockPreparedStatement and MockResultSet objects. I think that's the > wrong approach because you are putting too much real implementation into > your mock objects. > > Instead, create a MockConnection a MockPreparedStatement, keep > references both objects in variables in your test, tell the connection > to return the mock statement when createStatement() (or whatever) is > called, and verify both objects at the end of the test. > > Cheers, > Nat. > > On Fri, 2002-08-23 at 12:00, Gilles DODINET wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think MockObjects are missing a feature very useful when working with factories. imho they should follow the Composite pattern. For instance, let's say i wanna use a MockConnection : i need a MockPreparedStatement and a MockResultset as well. If i want to externalize the creation of my MockObjects from the TestCase perspective (ok thats perhaps arguable), i have no practical way to do it, since i will have to call verify() on both myMockPreparedStatement and myMockResultset as well. But since the creation of the MockObject was delegated, i lost the references to those objects (and also Verifier.verifyObject() doesnt verify myPreparedStatement : it just ensure that it has been used). > > There's also a crappy work-around : using AspectJ, we can these functionnality at the price of extending MockConnection, MockPreparedStatement and MockResultSet. thats not satisfactory tho. so the better way i think would be to modify MockObject class to make it composite. What do you think of this =3F > > > > -- gd > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old > > cell phone=3F Get a new here for FREE! > > https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp=3Fr=3Dsourceforge1&refcode1=3Dvs339 0 > > > > Mockobjects-java-users mailing list > > Moc...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-jav a-users > -- > Dr. Nathaniel Pryce, Technical Director, B13media Ltd. > Studio 3a, 22-24 Highbury Grove, London N5 2EA, UK > http://www.b13media.com > > > |