Hi Shane.
Annoyingly, we can't use Hamcrest because it's generics-based, and not
designed to be backward-compatible with java 1.4 (our target).
However, I'm creating an abstraction that will make sense to people who
understand Hamcrest, hence the vocabulary switch.
As a post-1.0 activity, I'd like to review jbehave to see how to make it
java 1.5-friendly whilst still being compatible with 1.4. One quick win
would be to have corresponding ensureThat(...) methods in Ensure
alongside all the that(...) methods. That way you can statically import
Ensure and have it read nicely.
Similarly, we can make minimock generics-aware if you're in 1.5, but
castable if not.
Again this came out of one of those annoying conversations with Joe
Walnes where he asks a question like "why aren't you doing this simple
thing?", which completely changes your outlook :)
Cheers,
Dan
Shane Duan wrote:
hamcrest change, eh? :)
I had some fun/pain with it over the weekend.
http://agileworks.blogspot.com/2006/12/so-much-for-java-generics.html
On 5 Dec 2006 08:42:14 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Revision 612 Author tastapod Date 2006-12-05 02:42:05 -0600 (Tue, 05
Dec
2006)
Log Message [dn] replaced constraint with matcher throughout (except in
JMockSugar because I can't)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
