Comments on: Re: The Black Art of Good Design http://agylen.com/2005/09/15/re-the-black-art-of-good-design/ Ugo Cei's Weblog Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:43:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Reborg http://agylen.com/2005/09/15/re-the-black-art-of-good-design/#comment-264 Reborg Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:47:14 +0000 http://agylen.com/2005/09/15/re-the-black-art-of-good-design/#comment-264 Well, some points to consider: - Interfaces (Java interfaces I mean) are not mandatory to drive developing using mocks. Jmock/Cglib version can mock concrete classes. Maybe are there for some other reasons. - Behavioral testing doesn't force a specific algorithm but a specific set of outgoing relationships and thus interfaces (in a broader sense, not Java interfaces). How those relationships are then used is not forced but of course their presence is checked. - Mocking system boundaries is one way to use mock objetcts, not the only one. In this case I call them Stubs. - I agree that behavioral test are less readable (more lines to read instead of state testing), but I think it dependes on the mocking framework. - I don't think that testing behavior is a way to avoid front design. Instead it forces you to think about a division of responsabilities exactly the same a CRC session can do. And a CRC session is a light-weight front design. Have a look at http://www.jmock.org/oopsla2004.pdf and http://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html for an in-depth. Well, some points to consider:
- Interfaces (Java interfaces I mean) are not mandatory to drive developing using mocks. Jmock/Cglib version can mock concrete classes. Maybe are there for some other reasons.
- Behavioral testing doesn’t force a specific algorithm but a specific set of outgoing relationships and thus interfaces (in a broader sense, not Java interfaces). How those relationships are then used is not forced but of course their presence is checked.
- Mocking system boundaries is one way to use mock objetcts, not the only one. In this case I call them Stubs.
- I agree that behavioral test are less readable (more lines to read instead of state testing), but I think it dependes on the mocking framework.
- I don’t think that testing behavior is a way to avoid front design. Instead it forces you to think about a division of responsabilities exactly the same a CRC session can do. And a CRC session is a light-weight front design.

Have a look at http://www.jmock.org/oopsla2004.pdf and http://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html for an in-depth.

]]> By: Tim Clark http://agylen.com/2005/09/15/re-the-black-art-of-good-design/#comment-263 Tim Clark Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:14:16 +0000 http://agylen.com/2005/09/15/re-the-black-art-of-good-design/#comment-263 You don't have to use interfaces to mock things. Maybe you should try a different mocking library. We use jmock and you can mock against interfaces and concrete classes. My two pence is that if it is hard to test the design is wrong. You don’t have to use interfaces to mock things. Maybe you should try a different mocking library. We use jmock and you can mock against interfaces and concrete classes.

My two pence is that if it is hard to test the design is wrong.

]]>