On 4/28/06, Anton Avtamonov wrote: > > On 4/28/06, Stepan Mishura wrote: > > On 4/28/06, Anton Avtamonov wrote: > > > > > > On 4/28/06, Stepan Mishura wrote: > > > > On 4/27/06, Anton Avtamonov wrote: > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > Which approach is better is very personal :-). I would ay that the > > > second one. It is more intention-revealing. Really, when you override > > > testDeserialized() you don't see how and where it is used. With > > > properly used delegation pattern the tests would be: > > > > > > Anton, when you override setUp() and tearDown() methods you also don't > see > > how and where they are used. Do you use them or copy/paste > setUp/tearDown > > code to every testing method? > > That's why setUp() should do something very common for all the tests > in the TestCase. All "test specific" customizations go to test > methods. > > Actually, no reasons to argue about minor design specifics: all of > them work. What to prefer is very individual as I said. I don't expect > consensus here :-).
A lot of copy/pased tests. I use delegation when possible just because of better flexibility. If > we want to discuss design and Design Patterns aspects (especially how > and where inheritance or delegation should be used) we can create a > separate thread :-). > > The idea is that both separating and mixing of the serialization tests > can be done. The original question is: what do we want. Definitely, > both approaches can be implemented. Yes, it is possible to implement any number of approaches - luni module will use one approach, security module will use another approach, beans will use the third one. But it would be better to select one approache and follow it to make development/support easier and simple. Thanks, Stepan Mishura ------------------------------------------------------ Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
