Re: Thoughts on ordered Mocks (was Re: [MO-java-dev] DynaMock proxytoString issue)

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

Nat Pryce wrote:
> From: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>
>>We argued this one out and thought that in most case people either care
>>about the order or they don't.
> It seems that there are always some methods that can occur out of order
> (toString, etc.).

if they matter, then put them in the expectations (this is another 
motivation for restructuring the special cases).

>>I'm not so keen on the newSequence()
>>because it doesn't make clear what happens to expectations applied to
>>the originating Mock. At least the OrderedMock has only one visible
>>behaviour.
> Could this be fixed by a better name?

not sure. it's more about 2 interfaces to the same behaviour.

>>We also considered adding something like:
>>   listener.expectVoid( "first", C.before("second") ); 
> This gets tricky because you need to unambiguously identify the first and
> second methods, and that gets difficult with the flexible way that methods
> are matched using decorators.  I find that putting callable objects into
> sequences makes this explicit and is not very verbose.

I suspect that simple name matching would work in practice. We also 
talked about adding a before() method to the callable objects, which 
would be unambiguous, but I couldn't be bothered to type in the example...

S.

-- 
"A LISP programmer knows the value of everything but the cost of nothing.
  A C programmer knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing."
(Todd Proebsting)