Martin Fowler has updated his Mocks Aren't Stubs article. It looks like a good introduction to a deep understanding of mock object testing. I was particularly struck by the definitions of dummy, fake, stub, and mock objects:

• Dummy objects are passed around but never actually used. Usually they are just used to fill parameter lists.
• Fake objects actually have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut which makes them not suitable for production.
• Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test, usually not responding at all to anything outside what's programmed in for the test.
• Mocks are objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.

I'd never heard this distinction, but it is a good one. Fowler attributes it to Gerard Meszaro, who it turns out is writing a book about patterns within test development, xUnit Patterns. The whole book is available on the website (for now), and looks like a good compendium of practices and ideas in test developement.

I continue to work on how to best incorporate testing into real-world projects. The pressure of time, and the compexity of large systems, both conspire to make testing a real challenge. So I'll be looking through the xUnit Patterns to see what it can add to my understanding.