I'd rather keep minimock, um, mini. Usually if you want to mock a class,
it means there's an abstraction you're missing. What /role/ is the class
playing that needs mocking? And is there an interface that you don't
have yet that would represent that role?
fwiw this is exactly the reason we have the mocking abstraction: you can
use minimock for the simple stuff, and jmock if you want to get into the
more esoteric mocking, so it's fine to mix them both up.
Annoyingly you can only have exactly one of UsingMiniMock or UsingJMock
as a superclass, which messes up your Hellbound abstract classes. Maybe
there's a way of injecting a mockery (Ivan Moore's term) rather than
inheriting one from a superclass?
Elizabeth Keogh wrote:
I've got to the first point at which I want to mock out a class,
rather than an interface.
This is something we've needed to do on almost every project I've been
on, and I think people will use JMock instead if we don't provide it.
Can I raise a JIRA issue?
Cheers,
Liz.
--
Elizabeth Keogh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sirenian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
