|
»
« Return to Thread: Extra option for ClassImposterizer
Re: Extra option for ClassImposterizer
by Ignat Zapolsky
::
Rate this Message:
Steve,
unfortunately it is not always possible to have great code from the
beginning (assume a legacy code base that was written by programmers of
different skills), thus we are forced to use ClassImposterizer.
And my idea was only to isolate one method of a class under test, but
not to call a method of an external library for which I'll definitely
introduce an interface & proxy object (as was described in your post).
Steve Freeman wrote:
> Personally, my first reaction is that this is missing the point.
>
> What /we/ are trying to achieve is a clean distinction between an
> object and its collaborators, so cutting a slice through another
> object where we use some bits but not others doesn't help with that.
> The only motivation for us to do this would be because we're working
> with a third-party library we can't change. In which case, we'd
> introduce an interface to collaborate with and a thin veneer to
> implement that interface in terms of the external class. Otherwise,
> we'd break up the external object, or at least have it implement an
> interface that describes the relationship we need.
>
> S.
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2009, at 14:48, Ignat Zapolsky wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if anyone was thinking about ability for ClassImposterizer
>> to forward method calls to original methods?
>>
>> This can facilitate refactoring of bulky classes by fixing logic of
>> just one method, not a series of (public / protected / default)
>> methods being called.
>>
>> PS. I've implemented a hack which allows to do this, but
>> unfortunately it is ugly in terms of specifying what method to
>> forward, e.g. it is a method with following signature :
>>
>> public static void forwardMethod(Method m, Object proxy)
>
>
>
> Steve Freeman
> Winner of the Agile Alliance Gordon Pask award 2006
>
> http://www.m3p.co.uk
>
> M3P Limited.
> Registered office. 2 Church Street, Burnham, Bucks, SL1 7HZ.
> Company registered in England & Wales. Number 03689627
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
unfortunately it is not always possible to have great code from the
beginning (assume a legacy code base that was written by programmers of
different skills), thus we are forced to use ClassImposterizer.
And my idea was only to isolate one method of a class under test, but
not to call a method of an external library for which I'll definitely
introduce an interface & proxy object (as was described in your post).
Steve Freeman wrote:
> Personally, my first reaction is that this is missing the point.
>
> What /we/ are trying to achieve is a clean distinction between an
> object and its collaborators, so cutting a slice through another
> object where we use some bits but not others doesn't help with that.
> The only motivation for us to do this would be because we're working
> with a third-party library we can't change. In which case, we'd
> introduce an interface to collaborate with and a thin veneer to
> implement that interface in terms of the external class. Otherwise,
> we'd break up the external object, or at least have it implement an
> interface that describes the relationship we need.
>
> S.
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2009, at 14:48, Ignat Zapolsky wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if anyone was thinking about ability for ClassImposterizer
>> to forward method calls to original methods?
>>
>> This can facilitate refactoring of bulky classes by fixing logic of
>> just one method, not a series of (public / protected / default)
>> methods being called.
>>
>> PS. I've implemented a hack which allows to do this, but
>> unfortunately it is ugly in terms of specifying what method to
>> forward, e.g. it is a method with following signature :
>>
>> public static void forwardMethod(Method m, Object proxy)
>
>
>
> Steve Freeman
> Winner of the Agile Alliance Gordon Pask award 2006
>
> http://www.m3p.co.uk
>
> M3P Limited.
> Registered office. 2 Church Street, Burnham, Bucks, SL1 7HZ.
> Company registered in England & Wales. Number 03689627
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
« Return to Thread: Extra option for ClassImposterizer
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
