Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>> ATM there are a number of concrete mocks contained in >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mailet/base/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/james/test/mock/. >>> they aren't unit tests and have no dependencies on junit but are >>> useful when creating unit tests. i think they'd be better in main, >>> probably repackaged into org.apache.mailet.base.mock. >>> >>> opinions? >> I prefer to use tests because tests is where I look for similar things, >> but I'm not strong on this and I've no objections to this, if this helps >> you moving forward. > > i'm agnostic > > the packaging needs to be rationalised. not particularly sure about > the best package: org.apache.mailet.base.test.mock? > org.apache.mailet.base.mock? org.apache.mailet.base.test?
org.apache.mailet.base.test "Mock" could be misleading as that package does not contain "proper" mocks (as for Fowler summary: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestDouble.html). Fowler (and many other) would call most of that classes "Fake". Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
