Re: Is 'Final' for classes and methods a good feature or something that should be eliminated?
- From: rmoldskr+usenet@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:58:24 -0600
Michael Feathers <mfeathers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rmoldskr+usenet@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
It hampers _one_ particular testing technique, it doesn't make anything
untestable.
Which one technique are you thinking of?
On second thought I suppose there's actually two related techniques: To
create a light-weight proxy of the library object by subclassing and
overriding the library logic, and to "whiten the box" by subclassing and
adding instrumenting or monitoring code.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Is 'Final' for classes and methods a good feature or something that should be eliminated?
- From: Michael Feathers
- Re: Is 'Final' for classes and methods a good feature or something that should be eliminated?
- From: rmoldskr+usenet
- Re: Is 'Final' for classes and methods a good feature or something that should be eliminated?
- From: Michael Feathers
- Re: Is 'Final' for classes and methods a good feature or something that should be eliminated?
- From: rmoldskr+usenet
- Re: Is 'Final' for classes and methods a good feature or something that should be eliminated?
- From: Michael Feathers
- Is 'Final' for classes and methods a good feature or something that should be eliminated?
- Prev by Date: Re: It's the Psychology, Stupid (Was: The reality of Topmind)
- Next by Date: Re: Relational-to-OOP Tax
- Previous by thread: Re: Is 'Final' for classes and methods a good feature or something that should be eliminated?
- Next by thread: Re: Is 'Final' for classes and methods a good feature or something that should be eliminated?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
