Re: [Mockobjects-java-dev] Deliverables and organization of the src tree

[Steve F. <st...@m3...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Massol" <vm...@oc...>
To: <moc...@li...>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 12:35 PM
Subject: [Mockobjects-java-dev] Deliverables and organization of the src
tree


> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose the following src directory hierarchy
>
> src
>   |_ framework
>     |_ com
>       |_ ...
>   |_ tests
>     |_ com
>       |_ ...
>   |_ extensions
>     |_ com
>       |_ ...
>   |_ examples
>     |_ com
>       |_ ...
>
> Where :
>
> * framework : the core classes + mock implementations for the standard
> J2SE/J2EE classes, i.e. the standard APIs making the Java platform
(servlet,
> taglib, io, sql, ...)
> * tests : the core classes unit tests. Note that there is no need for test
> classes for the mock implementations themselves as they don't contain
logic
> (just getters/setters)
> * extensions : mock implementations for APIs that are _not_ part of the
Java
> platform (J2SE/J2EE), like VisualAge for Java Tools API, Struts, ATG
> proprietary classes, ...
> * examples : comprehensive examples showing how to use the mockobject
> framework and also acting as functional tests for the mockobject
framework.
>
> Can I go ahead with this and make the little needed modifications and put
a
> README file that explains this ?

shouldn't 'framework' be 'core'?

I'm not sure about the package name for the
tests. These days, I've been replacing
com.one.two... with test.one.two... We need
separate packages for tests so we can separate
them in VisualAge.

I'm not sure, but we may need to distinguish
between core mocks (such as io) and J2EE mocks
(such as servlets) which require extra jars to
compile. The other extensions (such as atg)
should definately be separate.

Steve