harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anton Avtamonov" <anton.avtamo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Tests for serialization – which package, name?
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2006 06:43:56 GMT
On 4/28/06, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/28/06, Anton Avtamonov wrote:
> >
> > On 4/28/06, Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > > On 4/27/06, Anton Avtamonov  wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Which approach is better is very personal :-). I would ay that the
> > second one. It is more intention-revealing. Really, when you override
> > testDeserialized() you don't see how and where it is used. With
> > properly used delegation pattern the tests would be:
>
>
> Anton, when you override setUp() and tearDown() methods you also don't see
> how and where they are used. Do you use them or copy/paste setUp/tearDown
> code to every testing method?

That's why setUp() should do something very common for all the tests
in the TestCase. All "test specific" customizations go to test
methods.

Actually, no reasons to argue about minor design specifics: all of
them work. What to prefer is very individual as I said. I don't expect
consensus here :-).

I use delegation when possible just because of better flexibility. If
we want to discuss design and Design Patterns aspects (especially how
and where inheritance or delegation should be used) we can create a
separate thread :-).

The idea is that both separating and mixing of the serialization tests
can be done. The original question is: what do we want. Definitely,
both approaches can be implemented.

--
Anton Avtamonov,
Intel Middleware Products Division

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message