mockobjects-java-dev

Re: [MO-java-dev] mock parameter in call() method?

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

> It allows mocked call to have access to "this", which is useful if you ne=
ed
> to mock side effects.

I can see that it /might/ be useful. I'm just struck that it hasn't been so=
 far. Perhaps we've overestimated the requirement.

S.

Re: [MO-java-dev] mock parameter in call() method?

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

I needed it in a project that used the old dynamic mock package (that didn't
support it and needed modification), which is why I added it to the new
DynaMock package.

I agree that it's pretty a rare requirement though.

Regards,
            Nat.
_______________________
Dr. Nathaniel Pryce
B13media Ltd.
http://www.b13media.com
+44 (0)7712 526 661

----- Original Message -----
From: <st...@m3...>
To: <moc...@li...>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] mock parameter in call() method?



> It allows mocked call to have access to "this", which is useful if you
need
> to mock side effects.

I can see that it /might/ be useful. I'm just struck that it hasn't been so
far. Perhaps we've overestimated the requirement.

S.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:  Etnus, makers of TotalView, The best
thread debugger on the planet. Designed with thread debugging features
you've never dreamed of, try TotalView 6 free at www.etnus.com.
_______________________________________________
Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
Moc...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev

Re: [MO-java-dev] mock parameter in call() method?

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

Do we want to drop it, then? The c# equivalent doesn't pass the object 
through.

S.

Nat Pryce wrote:
> I needed it in a project that used the old dynamic mock package (that didn't
> support it and needed modification), which is why I added it to the new
> DynaMock package.
> 
> I agree that it's pretty a rare requirement though.

Re: [MO-java-dev] mock parameter in call() method?

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

From: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>
> Do we want to drop it, then? The c# equivalent doesn't pass the object
> through.

Actually, let's drop it.  I've realised that you can get the same effect
using other Java mechanisms -- instance variables or final variables and
inner classes, for example.  It's better to be consistent with other Mock
libraries.

Cheers,
            Nat.