----- Original Message -----
From: <ma...@bt...>
To: <moc...@li...>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Mockobjects-java-dev] UnsupportedOperationException
> >MockNotImplementedException (for the not implemented methods) and
> > MockNotSupportedException (for the not supported methods).
>
> I am happy with this suggestion.
>
> > I don't agree here ... (once more :) ). There has been 3 versions of
java
> > since 1.1 (1.2, 1.3 and now 1.4). It is normal to drop support for 1.1.
> > *all* the I have seen have already dropped support for 1.1 or are
seriously
> > considering it ... Even JUnit is considering dropping it in its next
> > version.
>
> The biggest code base of MockObjects is the Connextra code base, they are
stuck in 1.1.8 at the moment - there is no compelling reason not to support
1.1.x as we aren't doing anything fancy. The only unique feature is
auto-validation of verifiables, and in the core project it is no bit problem
to keep the manual verify methods.
>
> I don't mind having to import a compatibility set of classes - and with
careful use of non specific import lines (especially in java.util.*) we can
do this.
>
> I think it is totally unfair to shaft Connextra on this especially as most
of the work on Mock objects came from that team and they kindly donated the
foundation of the current code base. As it is easy to support 1.1.x I think
we should.
>
Tim,
I agree with this except on the following points :
* Donating is one thing, supporting is another. I see no other connextra
person involved here ... they should speak up. To give you another example:
although I have written and donated Cactus to Jakarta, if I were to leave
for some time and come back , I would have to accept that others would have
made some changes in the best interest of the project (which may conflict
with my own interest). That's the hard part of open source ...
* Donating to open source means relinquishing the full power you had on the
code to other persons. If these other persons think otherwise and they are
in majority, it's too bad for yourself. Again, I see no connextra persons
who are committers and speaking here, apart from you. This lead me to
believe that they are not using the Mock Objects project but rather using a
branch of their own. Now if they plan to use it in the future, they need to
participate if they wish to drive it.
However, I do agree that if it does not cost much, we can maintain JDK 1.1
compatibility. I don't know what this auto-verify stuff is so I can't speak
for that.
My £0.02
-Vincent
|
