[MO-java-users] Re: [MO-java-dev] Avoiding loops in Verifier again.

[Simon L. <sim...@uk...>]

On Sunday 29 September 2002 17:58, Steve Freeman wrote:
> I'd like to propose that a Verifiable loop is a code smell which
> implies that something has become too complicated, so we shouldn't
> compensate for it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
As I introduced the code that tried to cope with smell (in a simple way -=20
through the static Vector) I suppose I should comment.

I think you may be over generalising here in that MockObjects currently=20
only has one place where a child requires a reference to its parent=20
(which has a reference to its children), and you're trying to avoid the=20
potential problem by defining it as a smell.

The aim of MockObjects, surely?, is to support anything that can be thrown=
=20
at it. Isn't just ignoring this kind of 'problem' limiting? The=20
MockObjects must be as complicated as the thing they are trying to Mock.=20
Ignoring parts of industry standard interfaces sounds like a death=20
sentence to me...=20

Having ideals is fine, sticking them to the end without compromise is=20
quite often stupid.

Also in certain cirumstances Verifier can be involved in mantaining the=20
infinate loops and inherant stack overflow that occurs in these=20
circumstances, is this the sort of image a project that should be capable=20
of being used in the commerce commercial quality projects be projecting?

As far as the JDBC problem goes could it be gotten around by storing the=20
parent references as the implemented interface rather than the Mock=20
reference?

Simon.,
(My thoughts - NOT my employers)