On Oct 2, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
Ah, if only test cases were that simple ... :-)
If it isn't simple to unit test that generally indicates we have a
broader problem - e.g. lack of separation of concerns.
As it turns out, CompositeReference (as an extension of
ReferenceExtension) needs to pass a reference interface class to
its parent ctor, which seems most appropriately obtained from the
service contract it is given. This does not seem to be very
generic, not mention the fact that ServiceContract is an abstract
class, not an interface and not directly instantiable either, so
the test case cannot be very generic either.
So much for that, thoughts?
Use a private inner class to mock out ServiceContract? Use EasyMock
class extension to generate a instantiable version of
ServiceContract? Make ServiceContract an interface?
Probably should use the inner class approach but I've also found
EasyMock to be useful in mocking out classes as well through its
extension package.
But more fundamentally, why does ReferenceExtension need a Java
interface class - shouldn't it be using a ServiceContract?
Yea this seems a bit strange. It should only require one when
generating proxies.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
