axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Jellinghaus <>
Subject Re: Generated impl template
Date Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:06:01 GMT
In fact, this makes me wonder:  why not actually test *for* the NYI exception being returned?
 Wouldn't that be a valid test that the stub was getting called, as well as a valid test that
the stub was really NYI as it should be?

If it's not possible to verify the type of the exception without doing some kind of icky string
sniffing, then isn't that something that could / should be fixed?  (passing of typed faults
over the wire, preserving type?)


At 01:53 PM 10/28/2001 -0500, Glen Daniels wrote:
>Hi Russell!
>I can see this going either way, really.  I kind of like the cleanliness of
>"NYI" exceptions, which remind you to fill something in more than just
>returning null or something.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Russell Butek" <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 1:13 PM
>Subject: Generated impl template
>> Right now if --skeleton is turned on we generate a template implementation
>> where each method throws a not-yet-implemented exception.  For automated
>> testing purposes it would be very useful if this template didn't fail on
>> every call so that we could use the default implementation in the test.
>> fact, this would be almost critical because, as it is now, the generated
>> implementations aren't even being tested.
>> So I would like to do one of two things:
>> 1.  Generate the template impl like we do now, throwing exceptions, unless
>> --testCase is turned on, in which case we generate runnable impls.
>> 2.  Always generate runnable impls.
>> Do folks have a preference?  Mine is 2.
>> Russell Butek

View raw message