Thank you, I thought it was rather lucid myself. =) 2009/3/26 Endre Stølsvik <[email protected]>
> > Oh, how profound and .. abstruse. > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:04, Dhanji R. Prasanna <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This is exactly why there is no Spring or Guice in the Ruby world. =D > > > > (Yes I know about Needle.) > > 2009/3/26 Endre Stølsvik <[email protected]> > >> > >> I find it pretty interesting that such /absolutely fundamental/ > >> aspects are discussed: In essence, the actual reason for Guice and > >> other DI frameworks' existence. > >> > >> For my part, I side with at least Daniel, but actually find the answer > >> even more on the opposite of Dhanji's arguments, and IIUC, so does at > >> least the entire Spring world: I believe the stance there is that you > >> do /not/ use the framework for testing - in tests, you actually wire > >> up the tested class by hand, of course mocking some or all of the > >> dependencies. When that is said, I personally often find myself doing > >> higher level integration testing, and thus I use Guice but with some > >> modules switched out with testing versions. > >> > >> From > >> > http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/2.5.x/reference/testing.html > >> "8.2 One of the main benefits of Dependency Injection is that your > >> code should really depend far less on the container than in > >> traditional J2EE development. The POJOs that comprise your application > >> should be testable in JUnit or TestNG tests, with objects simply > >> instantiated using the new operator, /without Spring or any other > >> container/." (emphasis not mine!) > >> > >> Endre. > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:50, Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > One of the main points of DI is testability, but the point of using a > >> > DI framework is to remove the need to write lots of factory code. > >> > That's the reason I use guice it anyway. > >> > > >> > Dan. > >> > > >> > On Mar 25, 2:41 am, "Dhanji R. Prasanna" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Brian Pontarelli > >> >> <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Someone still has to create the classes and wire everything > together. > >> >> > Duck-typing doesn't really help or hurt. > >> >> > >> >> That's no pain at all since everything is mockable in Ruby without > >> >> interfaces or constructor separation. You can even redefine classes > on > >> >> the > >> >> fly for test cases. The main point of dependency injection is > >> >> testability, > >> >> the rest is... well, nice, but not really germane to the the design > >> >> pattern. > >> >> > >> >> Dhanji. > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
