mockobjects-java-dev

[Mockobjects-java-dev] servlets library

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

SSB0aGluayB0aGUgY3VycmVudCBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBvZiBzZXJ2bGV0cyBpcyBhIGJpdCBv
dXQgb2YgZGF0ZS4gQW55b25lIG9iamVjdCB0byBicmluZ2luZyBpdCB1cCB0byBkYXRlPw0KDQpJ
IHRoaW5rIHRoZSBuZXcgc3R1ZmYgaXMgbGFyZ2VseSBhZGRpdGl2ZSwgc28gdGhlcmUgc2hvdWxk
bid0IGJlIGEgYmFja3dhcmRzIGNvbXBhdGliaWxpdHkgaXNzdWUuDQoNClN0ZXZlDQoNCg==

Re: [Mockobjects-java-dev] servlets library

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

Do you mean that the mocks are not complete or that the mocked api is 2.1 ?
(I'm not sure about the version but that's my guess seen that you guys were
using vajava when you wrote it ... :) ).

I think we should have at least 2 packages : one for servlet api 2.2 and one
for servlet api 2.3.

you doing it Steve ... :-)

Thanks
-Vincent

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>
To: <moc...@li...>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:18 PM
Subject: [Mockobjects-java-dev] servlets library


> I think the current implementation of servlets is a bit out of date.
Anyone object to bringing it up to date?
>
> I think the new stuff is largely additive, so there shouldn't be a
backwards compatibility issue.
>
> Steve
>
> 2¡rjzS,´'yuS²q®z¶þ¶º~zþ¶Ss¡rj

Re: [Mockobjects-java-dev] servlets library

[Jeff M. <je...@mk...>]

I've actually got some mock objects written against the 2.3 api, there
not complete but they do add support for things like Filters

As far as I can tell the 2.3 api is backwards compatible with the 2.1
version (think it's actually a requirement of the spec) so you don't
need to versions. Although there could be reasons for it on grounds of
causing less confusion although it is more work.

On Mon, 2001-11-12 at 22:36, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Do you mean that the mocks are not complete or that the mocked api is 2.1=
 ?
> (I'm not sure about the version but that's my guess seen that you guys we=
re
> using vajava when you wrote it ... :) ).
>=20
> I think we should have at least 2 packages : one for servlet api 2.2 and =
one
> for servlet api 2.3.
>=20
> you doing it Steve ... :-)
>=20
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>
> To: <moc...@li...>
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:18 PM
> Subject: [Mockobjects-java-dev] servlets library
>=20
>=20
> > I think the current implementation of servlets is a bit out of date.
> Anyone object to bringing it up to date?
> >
> > I think the new stuff is largely additive, so there shouldn't be a
> backwards compatibility issue.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > 2=A1rjzS,=B4'y=8DuS=B2q=AEz=B6=FE=B6=BA~z=FE=B6S=9Ds=A1rj
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> Moc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
--=20

[MO-java-dev] Re: [Mockobjects-java-dev] servlets library

[Steve F. <st...@m3...>]
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Re: [MO-java-dev] Re: [Mockobjects-java-dev] servlets library

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>
To: <moc...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:25 AM
Subject: [MO-java-dev] Re: [Mockobjects-java-dev] servlets library


> If one version would do, I would be happier.
>

That would mean that servlet 2.1 users will see all setupXXX, setExpectedXXX
for servlet api 2.2 and 2.3. Same, servlet api 2.3 users (for example) will
see setupXXX and setExpectedXXX for methods that do *not* exist anymore
[because deprecation works only for such an amount of time and then method
is removed - not sure if any has been removed yet but if not it'll come soon
enough].

I would also prefer a single version but not sure it is doable for the above
reasons. That's a general question that will happen for all our mocks. The
problem already exists for api that have changed in the jdk between 1.4 and
1.1. We need to find a mechanism ... I have no good solution for now to
propose ... :)

-Vincent

> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Martin" <je...@mk...>
> To: <moc...@li...>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mockobjects-java-dev] servlets library
>
>
> > I've actually got some mock objects written against the 2.3 api, there
> > not complete but they do add support for things like Filters
> >
> > As far as I can tell the 2.3 api is backwards compatible with the 2.1
> > version (think it's actually a requirement of the spec) so you don't
> > need to versions. Although there could be reasons for it on grounds of
> > causing less confusion although it is more work.
>
>
>
2?$¡¸ÞrÛ#jözùsSX§,X¬´Ê'?ãyËl«ÚuëåSËl²<«qç讧zØm¶>?þX¬¶Ë(º·~Sàzw­þX¬¶ÏåS
Ëbú?s?$¡¸ÞrÛ#jö

[MO-java-dev] Re: [Mockobjects-java-dev] servlets library

[Jeff M. <je...@cu...>]

I've writen some very basic mocks for the new 2.3 servlet stuff

I've put them here http://www.custommonkey.org/~jeff/mock/ there's also
a couple of small changes to AbstractExpectationCollection and
MockConnection.

I apologise in advance is there a bit untidy but I've not had a chance
to go back to them and tidy up yet.


On Mon, 2001-11-12 at 22:18, Steve Freeman wrote:
> I think the current implementation of servlets is a bit out of date. Anyone object to bringing it up to date?
> 
> I think the new stuff is largely additive, so there shouldn't be a backwards compatibility issue.
> 
> Steve
>