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

[Nat P. <nat...@b1...>]

> > From: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>
> >>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.

Not if we get rid of the OrderedMock class as I am suggesting.  I think this
will just make things a lot simpler.  All Mocks are unordered.  If you want
to set up an expectation on the order of certain calls, create a
CallSequence and add it to the mock, or use the newSequence sugar method.

That would also disallow confusing code such as:

    private Mock mock;  // This looks like it is declaring an unordered mock
    ...
    pubic void setUp() {
        mock = new OrderedMock( Interface.class ); // No it is actually an
ordered mock.
    }

Cheers,
            Nat.