On 5/12/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/12/06, John Fallows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/10/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > JMock does look interesting, but a couple of basic questions: > > - Is it available in a maven repository? > > > Yes. http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/jmock/ > > - Is its license compatible? On the surface, it would appear so, but IANAL and never played one on TV.
I had to read that several times to figure it out - does IANAL mean "I Am Not A Laywer" ? :-) The way to get a definitive answer is to submit this to the
[email protected] mailing list where license-savvy folks are hanging out. I'll forward them a query.
Thanks, that'll be useful to know. CGLib is under Apache2 license and jMock is under the following license
> > http://jmock.codehaus.org/license.html > > ... and one more general one. The thing that drives me up the > > wall with the current mock codebase in the ADF Faces tests > > is that it forces you to say "I expect method foo() to be called > > at least N times", even though with JSF there's rarely any > > such assurances whether a method will be called or not, > > and if so how many times. E.g., how often is FacesContext.getViewRoot > () > > called? Once? Twice? 20 times? > > > As the test writer you have the flexibility to either specify the number > of > calls precisely or not, depending on whether or not it is important to the > test. I think Adam's point was that the number of calls might be indeterminate if different implementations of JSF do things differently. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to use a library that *forced* me to specify call counts, even when I didn't care, either :-).
Yep. Sorry if I wasn't clear, jMock doesn't force you to specify call counts. tc, -john. -- http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10044 Author: Pro JSF and Ajax: Building Rich Internet Components, Apress
