RE: [MO-java-dev] Volunteer: Ted Husted

[Vincent M. <vm...@oc...>]

I am personally +1 to everything Ted has mentioned below and I reiterate
my +1 to make Ted a committer.

Thanks
-Vincent

PS: Ted, have you had a look at Easy Mock which uses dynamic proxies to
generate mocks on the fly (needs jdk1.3+).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Husted [mailto:hu...@ap...]
> Sent: 25 August 2002 17:42
> To: Vincent Massol
> Cc: 'MockObjects'
> Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] Volunteer: Ted Husted
> 
> Since the MockObjects Java API, by definition, has to implement many
> methods as stubs, browsing the CVS is much more difficult than it
would
> be if this was a finely-tuned XP codebase. My suggestion would be that
> we (meaning I) provide JavaDocs for methods that provide
functionality,
> but continue to omit them for "notImplemented()" stub methods. This
will
> make it easier for *users* to zoom in on what they need to know. As is
> stands, because of all the red-tape methods, it is very hard to see
the
> forest for the trees.
> 
> Respectfully, I would also suggest that XP teams do not omit JavaDocs
> because of the presumed clarity of the code. The precept is that XP
runs
> on conversation and unit tests rather than on paper *and* that
everyone
> will be cross-trained through pair programming. An affect of the
> combined XP team practices is that  conventional documentation tends
to
> become redundant.
> 
> Since this is a public API -- and not an application being developed
by
> a closely-knit team -- we can't rely on many of the XP staples, like
> real-time conversation and pair programming. I agree that it is
> redundant a nd counterproductive to document stub methods. But I do
feel
> that omitting JavaDocs for implemented and additional methods will
make
> the API harder *for users* to access. IMHO, dismissing JavaDocs for a
> public API is not playing to win.
> 
> Of course, I'm not asking anyone else to do anything. But I would like
> to volunteer to provide JavaDocs and package overviews for the
> implemented methods -- for the combined benefit of the thousands of
> developers who (we hope) will be using the API. I would also be happy
to
> address any code-style issues as I go.
> 
> As for my own stuff: I am trying to turn over a new leaf and move to
> test-driven design. My own toolkit
> 
> -
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-commons-
> sandbox/scaffold/#dirlist
> 
> does not have unit tests. When I tried to just add application-level
> unit tests for my latest project,
> 
> - http://sourceforge.net/projects/wqdata
> 
> I found the lack of mock objects for my toollkit made testing
difficult.
> Since many of my classes work closely with the Java API, I then found
> that I need to use some standard Java mock objects along with my own.
> Which brings me here.
> 
> Since you were looking for help, I thought this would be a good time
to
> become involved with the MockObjects project and share what I learn as
I
> go.
> 
> -Ted.
> 
> 
> Vincent Massol wrote:
> 
> >Hi Ted!,
> >
> >Hey, that's great! I'd love to have you join us. I'm +10000 :-)
> >
> >Warning: <xp mantra>The consensus on this project is to have no
javadoc
> >(a la XP). The belief is that the code should always be so simple as
to
> >not require any javadoc. If it's too complex, it needs refactoring.
In
> >addition, unit tests are provided and should act as documentation</xp
> >mantra>
> >
> >Code formatting would be great. Actually, I need to work with Steve
to
> >mavenize Mock Objects and thus also benefit from the checkstyle
reports.
> >
> >Have you been using mock objects on your projects ?
> >
> >I'd like to add you right now, but I guess I need to wait for the
other
> >project admins to have a say ...
> >
> >For all: Having Ted participate to our project is a god send! He is a
> >very well known committer in jakarta land and has always produced
> >excellent work.
> >
> >Thanks
> >-Vincent
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: moc...@li...
> >>[mailto:moc...@li...] On Behalf
Of
> >>
> >Ted
> >
> >>Husted
> >>Sent: 23 August 2002 20:38
> >>To: moc...@li...
> >>Subject: [MO-java-dev] Volunteer: Ted Husted
> >>
> >>I would like to volunteer to work on the Code formatting and
Javadoc.
> >>I'm a Committer to the Jakarta Struts and Commons, as well as a
couple
> >>other Sourceforge projects. My SourceForge handle is thusted
> >>
> >>-Ted.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-------------------------------------------------------
> >>This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
> >>cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
> >>https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> >>Moc...@li...
> >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
> >cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
> >https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390
> >_______________________________________________
> >Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> >Moc...@li...
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
> >
>