i repost the reply i sent to nat cuz it seems ive replied to him without =
cc the list.
>Messsage du 23/08/2002 13:00
>De : Gilles DODINET <rh...@wa...>
>A : <moc...@li...>
>Copie =E0 :
>Objet : Feature-request
>
> Hi,
>
> I think MockObjects are missing a feature very useful when working with=
factories. imho they should follow the Composite pattern. For instance, l=
et's say i wanna use a MockConnection : i need a MockPreparedStatement and=
a MockResultset as well. If i want to externalize the creation of my Mock=
Objects from the TestCase perspective (ok thats perhaps arguable), i have=
no practical way to do it, since i will have to call verify() on both myM=
ockPreparedStatement and myMockResultset as well. But since the creation o=
f the MockObject was delegated, i lost the references to those objects (an=
d also Verifier.verifyObject() doesnt verify myPreparedStatement : it just=
ensure that it has been used).
> There's also a crappy work-around : using AspectJ, we can these functio=
nnality at the price of extending MockConnection, MockPreparedStatement an=
d MockResultSet. thats not satisfactory tho. so the better way i think wou=
ld be to modify MockObject class to make it composite. What do you think o=
f this =3F
>
> -- gd
>
|
