Dan North wrote:
I agree that having Scenario extend SomethingScenario is weird, but
still it's somehow pleasing. Like jam with cheese.
My thinking is, if I don't care and I'm always going to use the default
setup, then all I care about is having a Scenario. Like if I want to
rent a car, I just phone up and ask for a Car. It might be the default
car (hence DefaultCar) which itself might be a Mazda. It might simply be
the only car they have.
Usually we represent this with an interface and a factory:
Car anyOldCar = carHireShop.rentalCar();
but in this case we want to give people an actual class they can extend.
Perhaps we've just stumbled on a new convention where the thing you want
people to use (extend) most often is just called Thing (the "default" is
implied), so there is nothing in its name to distract you from using it.
It actually fits the Dreyfus learning model rather nicely. A novice just
wants a Thing and some rules to make the thing work. Words like
"Default" or "JUnit" are context - which the novice isn't ready for.
Ok - not feeling strongly about it either way. I've un-dreprecated
Scenario and added javadoc comment as to provided the suggested entry
point for novice scenario developers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
