Does nobody else worry that a great deal of what's nowadays called "Java" isn't actually Java.
It's a mix of XML configuration files and annotations. Needing specialist IDE support, existing outside the type system, interpreted at runtime... A true proto-language in fact! That's your DSL for Java; Something written in any way possible, just so long as it stays as far away from the core language as possible (e.g. annotations), and possibly outside it entirely (xml, anyone?). Just consider Spring, Hibernate, etc. So by all means, defend this as the status quo, but don't pretend to be defending "pure Java" against alternative languages as you do so - because you're already using alternative languages. Worse still, you're promoting the rise of "interpreted XML & annotations" as being more Java-like than something which compiles down to bytecode, which is just plain wrong. 2010/10/27 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> > Please, just go away. > > -- > Cédric > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Wright > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 2010/10/27 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Mark Volkmann < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I wonder though if most people still give their test methods names >>>> that begin with "test". I do. One reason is so the test methods stand >>>> out in my IDE within the list of methods in the class. I want some way >>>> to visually distinguish between test methods and utility methods >>>> within the test class. >>>> >>> >>> Yes but this can be easily solved with a tool. Writing an updated Eclipse >>> Outline view to group methods by annotations is a matter of a few hours. Hey >>> I might even go ahead and write it myself. >>> >>> The thing is: most of the methods in my tests classes are test methods, >>> so the need for this is not that high, at least to me. >>> >>> As for naming, yes, old habits die hard and it's easy to just start your >>> method name with "test", but I find myself being more and more creative with >>> this now ("shouldThrowException", "userShouldBePresent", etc...). And I >>> always have the handy `description` attribute if I am in a verbose mood >>> (@Test(description = "Make sure we have exactly one user named Smith in the >>> db"), something that you can't do without annotations. >>> >> >> I'm sorry, but, yes that can be done without annotations: >> >> http://www.scalatest.org/getting_started_with_fun_suite >> http://code.google.com/p/specs/ >> >> and before anyone starts screaming "Oh no, not Scala again!" >> > > > > -- > Cédric > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
