Generally, I think a better way to do this is to use a standard mock object
framework. Then you don't have to fake up an interface.
But the original poster probably has a need to do integration tests more
than unit tests. In such tests, they need to test against a real ZK to make
sure that their assumptions about the semantics of ZK are valid.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:53 AM, David Rosenstrauch <dar...@darose.net>wrote:
> Consequently, the way I write my code for ZooKeeper is against a more
> generic interface that provides operations for open, close, getData, and
> setData. When unit testing, I substitute in a "dummy" implementation that
> just stores data in memory (i.e., a HashMap); when running live code I use
> an implementation that talks to ZooKeeper.