Whoops! Forgot to cite that source... http://www.artima.com/suiterunner/private2.html
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm curious to know why unit-testing is the motivation. In most cases, > encapsulation should never be broken for sake of exercising a public api. > Private data and methods should do their work while the public api bears the > results of the complete logic set, ie. the public api should fail its tests > if the private data and methods are not behaving correctly. > > Rick > > And Dave Thomas and Andy Hunt, in their book *Pragmatic Unit Testing* > [6<http://www.artima.com/suiterunner/private3.html#r6>], > write: > > In general, you don't want to break any encapsulation for the sake of > testing (or as Mom used to say, "don't expose your privates!"). Most of the > time, you should be able to test a class by exercising its public methods. > If there is significant functionality that is hidden behind private or > protected access, that might be a warning sign that there's another class in > there struggling to get out. > > > > > On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yeah, sorry half-cocked idea, badly described: Generate a unique private >> property name as a pair (Class ID, property name). >> >> If you rely on object IDs, you don’t have to think about that at all, only >> if you want to reproduce a private name somewhere else (say, in a unit test) >> *without* passing the name object around. >> >> On Oct 2, 2011, at 19:17 , Brendan Eich wrote: >> >> > On Oct 2, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> > >> >>> Still, we moved private name objects ahead, and rightly so, without >> adding syntax for them. >> >> >> >> That makes sense, as it doesn’t preclude sugar in the future. One thing >> to consider: Do private names need to be globally unique or is >> unique-per-class enough? The former enables many intriguing other >> applications, but it might preclude moving to a nicer syntax later on. >> > >> > They are objects with unique identity. Objects have identity, primitive >> types do not. You can forge a string. You can't forge an object. It's a >> capability. >> > >> > If you mean to suggest two classes C and D, each with a private name P, >> where C's P === D's P, that is a very bad idea. It's a capability leak, a >> channel for communicating, attacking, and subverting D from C. >> > >> > /be >> >> -- >> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer >> >> [email protected] >> twitter.com/rauschma >> >> home: rauschma.de >> blog: 2ality.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
