On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 19:34, ran tene wrote:
> i just meant that i can check the code in one fo the ways it was meant to
> be/is used
> for example
> try
> {
> MyComponent log;
> myComponent = (MyComponent) manager.lookup(MyComponent.ROLE);
> }
> catch (...)
> {
> ...
> }
> or in any other way that it can be used
> for example:
> try
> {
> MyComponent log;
> myComponent = (MyComponent) manager.lookup("some-string");
> }
> catch (...)
> {
> ...
> }
> if i choose the first option then
> 1 - people can use the test to learn how to use the class. the thoght
> behind the class.
> 2 - but, changes in the class implementaiton which depend on the fact that
> role represent some interface or any static field will not result in a
> failure (i know its a paranoidic thought ,but maybe thats what tests are
> for).
Oh - okay. The first method is the preferred method while the second form was
our older style.
> my question is about the target of unit tests.
>
> p.s.
> sorry for my english your project is very interesting. I want to use it for
> some application server for a distributed gui.
Your english is fine ;)
--
Cheers,
Pete
---------------------------------------------------
For every complex problem there is a solution that
is simple, neat and wrong
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
