Re: [MO-java-users] any pattern for this?

[J. X. <sou...@ma...>]

Quoting Nat Pryce <nat...@b1...>:

> ClassUnderTest would call an interface to perform unmarshalling.  It
> wouldn't care if the implementation of the interface was an adapter or a
> direct implementation.  Whichever approach you take (adapter or mocking
> castor), you'd put the mock unmarshaller into your own test package. 
> There's no need to touch the castor packages.

Yeah, it seems that an adapter is the most viable way so far.  I did have some 
other thoughts while we were exchanging these messages, though.  Is it possible 
to relax the expectation semantics so that expectations wouldn't have to be set 
*before* the "actuals" happen.  Wouldn't it be more flexible if expectations 
can be set at any time before verification, while actual cases are only 
recorded as they happen?  Then only at verification time they would be compared 
against each other. 

--J.X.