tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479932290949673745.post1399606738271210327..comments2022-12-21T05:15:25.565-05:00Comments on Geek in a Suit: Make Fake/Stub objects simpler with proxies.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11149956661907218421noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479932290949673745.post-72729983798341417752012-02-07T14:15:33.306-05:002012-02-07T14:15:33.306-05:00So, apparently I have had moderated comments for y...So, apparently I have had moderated comments for years and not known it. <br /><br />But to answer, there's nothing "wrong" wtih EasyMock - it does the job - specifically "nice mocks." I just find (or found) it fairly hard to easily, readably, and conveniently stage nice mocks. Some things have improved over the years, and Mockito is something I really appreciate for doing convenient stubbing and "test spies." But regardless, this pattern was simple adn easy, and it distinguished my mocks from my stubs. Especially where I find people over-specifying their mocks, or using mocks to stub things out and then verifying where they shouldn't. <br /><br />Hmm. I don't want to make this a mocks vs. stubs rant - I just tend to not like to use mocks where I need a pure stub - that is, I"m not validating the behaviour and interaction with the collaborator - the collaborator is literally just there to satisfy the dependency.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149956661907218421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479932290949673745.post-6656396146890479232009-07-16T15:18:22.559-04:002009-07-16T15:18:22.559-04:00Christian - you've got me a little confused. W...Christian - you've got me a little confused. What about this doesn't EasyMock do for you? Can't you feed it an interface and implement only the bits you care about?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530850504038060457noreply@blogger.com