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 <>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.

Reply via email to