testdrivendevelopment at Yahoo! Groups

Re: SRP in a service

Donaldson, John (GEO) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:13:01 GMT

Franz, Your assumptions are pretty much correct. The interesting part goes on in the "service handler". And the serializing/deserializing is pretty simple. And

Re: Test for Singleton class

KathyVS — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:21:55 GMT

... I've heard this called the "just use one" version of singleton. Mostly everyone agrees that this type is okay (when needed); similarly, these are no

Re: ANN: Testable Java

Charlie Poole — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:38:05 GMT

Hi Michael, The feature/construct distinction is a good insight! Charlie

Re: Test for Singleton class

Charlie Poole — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:33:01 GMT

The author specifically says he's talking about a particular kind of singleton: i.e. one that imposes it's own "singleton-ness." I agree that this is a bad

Re: SRP in a service

Franz Allan Valencia See — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:19:19 GMT

By 'Create it in the model layer (which will also store it in the database) - get an id back', I'm guessing this is where the ServiceHandler delegation comes

Re: SRP in a service

Sidar Ok — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:50:25 GMT

To be honest, I am not very fond of those objects serialized into strings - deserializing and serializing should be infrastructural concerns that has nothing

SRP in a service

Donaldson, John (GEO) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:19:52 GMT

I'm having some difficulty with SRP in the context of a SOA service. For the sake of the discussion, let's say we have a service "CreateTravelPlan" which takes

ANN: Testable Java

Gishu Pillai — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:04:45 GMT

Timely, enlightening and concise. Thank you sir for taking the time to bring this piece to the general populace. Now I have a checklist of usual-suspects to

ANN: Testable Java

mfeathers256 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:52:16 GMT

I just wrote a paper called 'Testable Java' which outlines the sort of testability traps that I see people fall into over and over again when they aren't doing

Re: Test for Singleton class

Joao Eduardo Hornburg — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:54:43 GMT

Just don't use them! They're procedural. Bad OO. http://misko.hevery.com/code-reviewers-guide/flaw-brittle-global-state-singletons/ João E. Hornburg

Re: Test for Singleton class

twitter.com/nfma — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:21:21 GMT

I've tried to use powermock and ended up with very bad tests... I'd rather just build integration tests and refactor code until it's testable. 2009/11/19 Nayan

Re: Test for Singleton class

Nayan Hajratwala — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:05:03 GMT

... PowerMock is very good for legacy code bases where there often is not a good/easy/non-destructive way of modifying the code to allow for mocking. I'd agree

Re: Test for Singleton class

Adam Sroka — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:08:29 GMT

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:39 PM, johantoutsimplement ... I would argue that. others would argue that it allows you to not ... I agree that that is worse, but

Re: Test for Singleton class

johantoutsimplement — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:51:08 GMT

Another option is to use PowerMock . It allows you mock stuff normally not mockable like static, final, private or

Re: Test for Singleton class

Angel Java Lopez — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:50:55 GMT

Hi people! Hmmm...IMO, a singleton could be tested ("easier") if it has no state. As any static method in a class. Another kind of singleton that could be