Do you guys use Cairngorm at all?
It will be interesting to see how Paul brings it all together in
later posts.
On 16/10/2007, at 6:45 AM, aduston1976 wrote:
One other detail about our implementation: Because there is no
dependency injection in AS3 (that I know of), I have an Abstract
Factory generate the View components. This way I can just swap out my
Abstract Factory with one that generates Mock Views for testing by
altering a Boolean constant in the main startup class.
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Duston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In our Flex projects we typically use the Passive View pattern (
> http://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/PassiveScreen.html). Probably I
should blog
> about my experience with this, but I am pathologically lazy and
terribly
> selfish, so I don't have a blog. The applications I'm creating
involve a lot
> of bidirectional server communication and real-time multiuser
interaction,
> so using this pattern enables me to create View test doubles that
use
> LocalConnection to communicate with a central admin testing flex app
that
> runs test harness scripts. For example, a simple test would be: Have
user 1
> login, and make sure the name appears in user 2's screen. But we can
> essentially replicate arbitrary user interactions using this setup,
and test
> the application end-to-end modulo Views. We can also substitute
mocks for
> View classes to test the Controllers. I should mention that
coding these
> mocks in AS3 is a bit of a PITA. Can anyone think of a way to create
a flex
> mock test framework? Message me off-list please! Another advantage
of this
> approach is that my View (i.e. MXML) classes contain very little
code, just
> setter methods and calls to the Controller. That makes the software
text for
> these less intimidating to graphic designers.
>
> We are actually looking for someone to help us part-time with our
Flex
> coding. We can only afford $20 per hour right now, but email me
off-list if
> you are interested! We are making some pretty cool applications!
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 10/15/07, Paul Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think the principle of extracting everything that can't be
expressed as
> > a simple data binding is solid.
> >
> > That makes it easy to inject a test data object (or series of data
or data
> > objects) to automate running through each presentation
possibility.
> >
> > ...paul
> >
> >
> > On 10/15/07, Bjorn Schultheiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > I'm attempting to get a discussion going here on this topic
since Paul
> > > disabled comments on his blog.
> > >
> > > Is anyone else here reading this series?
> > >
> > > In particular his last post.
> > > Supervising Presenter
> > >
> > >
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/paulw/archives/2007/10/
presentation_pa_2.cfm
> > >
> > > One of the benefits he speaks about with using this pattern is,
> > > Improved separation of concerns
> > > Following the Supervising Presenter pattern should yield an
> > > application-specific class hierarchy that is separated from
the view
> > > classes, but coupled to them. Common presentation concerns can
be refactored
> > > into Presenter base classes, and this should help to reduce
code-duplication
> > > and improve consistency across an application.
> > >
> > > This concern is of huge importance to me as a flex dev.
> > >
> > > During dev one of the main issues i run into is what will be an
> > > 'application-specific view' as opposed to a 'reusable-
component' as
> > > abstraction can be a time-consuming exercise.
> > > I've never been a fan of code behind but i think the 'Presenter'
does
> > > bring in a useful and easy to implement application level of
abstraction
> > > that can ease development.
> > >
> > > btw I also like his use of Binding.
> > >
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Bjorn
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
