Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] Re: Is object testing enough? -- in-memory Repository

Expand Messages
  • J. B. Rainsberger
    ... If it weren t for interoperation with other applications that demand RDBMS... I just haven t had a real project on which I ve been allowed to try
    Message 1 of 260 , Aug 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeff Grigg wrote:

      > --- "J. B. Rainsberger" <jbrains@r...> wrote:
      >
      >>[...] I may have a Repository interface. When I implement
      >>this completely in memory, for testing purposes, this is
      >>not a fake, and not a mock, but rather, an alternate
      >>implementation. It is a full-bore in-memory Repository,
      >>and it would be production worthy if it weren't for this
      >>story here that says, "I want to be able search among
      >>all the forms ever submitted in the system," which seems
      >>to imply a certain kind of persistence. :)
      >>
      >>You can read a story about how I did this in the past--
      >>about 2001 while at IBM--in Better Software Magazine's
      >>April 2004 edition. I first used an in-memory Repository
      >>(though I didn't call it that then) to drive the design
      >>of the object model, then a few weeks before release,
      >>implemented the RDBMS implementation to talk to our
      >>master database. Only then did I create the database
      >>schema to support it. It worked quite well for me.
      >
      > Well, ditch the database, and just take one simple step to full blown
      > Object Prevalence technology, possibly with Prevayler. ;-> About
      > all you need to add is Command objects.
      >
      > http://www.prevayler.org/wiki.jsp?topic=PrevalenceSkepticalFAQ

      If it weren't for interoperation with other applications that demand
      RDBMS... I just haven't had a real project on which I've been allowed to
      try Prevayler.
      --
      J. B. Rainsberger,
      Diaspar Software Services
      http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1 416 791-8603
      Let's write software that people understand
    • Ilja Preuss
      ... Yes, but I thought that we were talking about a test that was wrong. Not sure wether that matters, though... Cheers, Ilja
      Message 260 of 260 , Aug 18, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Adrian Howard wrote:
        > On 17 Aug 2004, at 12:22, Ilja Preuss wrote:
        > [snip]
        >> It's certainly the case that without pairing/reviews I am more
        >> likely to
        >> *miss* tests - but I don't think that I get more *wrong* tests that
        >> cancel out with wrong implementation...
        >
        > I think it could happen over time.
        >
        > - Lack of pairing might mean I miss duplication so a bit
        > of business logic gets into foo and bar.
        >
        > - My acceptance test for the business logic only uses foo.
        >
        > - Later I change bar incorrectly, but the foo test still passes.
        >
        > False-pass for that bit of business logic.

        Yes, but I thought that we were talking about a test that was wrong. Not
        sure wether that matters, though...

        Cheers, Ilja
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.