Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <3F954CF3.7050008@leverageweb.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:12:51 -0400
From: Geoff Howard <cocoon@leverageweb.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: missing mocks for jms blocks ?
References: <LKENJPKDAIKAPKHEOCMMIEPAFLAA.cziegeler@s-und-n.de>
 <3F9541E2.3010905@anyware-tech.com> <3F9543E5.9050603@hartle-klug.com>
 <3F954A54.7010504@anyware-tech.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F954A54.7010504@anyware-tech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Michael Hartle wrote:
> 
>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>
>>> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had the same problem - as the mocks are missing, this block is 
>>>> excluded by default, so you don't get build problems using ant.
>>>>
>>> Ah, ok. But it is a bad thing to have code that's not compiled in the 
>>> default build...
>>>
>>>> Only with Eclipse you have the problem, I removed by hand the jms 
>>>> block from the source list of Eclipse.
>>>>
>>> That's what I did ;-)
>>>
>>> Sylvain
>>>
>> Just a question, those mock classes, are they created manually or do 
>> you already use some tool to generate them ?
> 
> In order to be compliant with the licence, they should _theroretically_ 
> be written by hand from a publicly available information such as the 
> javadoc on java.sun.com...

Which I presume is what Geronimo did.

Geoff

>> In case of the former, I recently wrote a tool to auto-implement 
>> interfaces as stubs with minimal methods to be extended manually - 
>> this could probably adapted to generate mock classes that naturally 
>> would not require further manual work.
> 
> 
> 
> Sylvain
>