Why not just use conditional compilation? Any reason someone would want
to use the .Net 1.1 version of RollBack with .Net 2.0?
In fact, this goes for MbUnit in general. Maintaining completely
distinct .Net 1.x and 2.x (and 3.x) assemblies is going to be a pain for
developers and users. For instance, we end up having to fork Assertion
classes by version. Much easier to just conditionally compile the
framework.
Jeff.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Ben Hall
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: MbUnit Re: RollBack on .net 2.0
I think (thinking back to the Framework Design Guidelines book) it
should be RollBack2Attribute as Attribute can get dropped.....i think
:)
On 21/12/06, Andrew Stopford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The original was RollbackAttribute
I think I prefer RollBack2Attribute now you mention it :)
Andy
On 12/21/06, Andrew Stopford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 12/21/06, Jamie Cansdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > > [RollBackAttribute2]
> > >
> > Any reason why this isn't [RollBack2Attribute] or [RollBack2] ?
> >
> > Jamie.
> >
> >
> > On 12/21/06, Andrew Stopford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > As of MbUnit 2.4.112 the code from Cathal Connolly and Todd
> > > Menier for
a
> > > rollback using .NET 2.0 has been included in the
> > > MbUnit.Framework.2.0 assembly.
> > >
> > > As MbUnit.Framework.1.1 will be folded into MbUnit.Framework to
> > > make
use of
> > > this you will need to referance the MbUnit.Framework.2.0
> > > assembly and
use
> > >
> > > using MbUnit.Framework
> > >
> > > and then
> > >
> > > [RollBackAttribute2]
> > > pivate void TestSomething()
> > >
> > > rather than
> > >
> > > [RollBackAttribute]
> > > pivate void TestSomething()
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/1/06, toddm < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks cathal, this works great, and is a much-needed update!
> > > > I took what you did and was able to reduce the code quite a
> > > > bit, so I
thought
> > > > I'd share. This should be functionally equivalant:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method , AllowMultiple =
> > > > false, Inherited = true)] public sealed class
> > > > RollBackAttribute : DecoratorPatternAttribute {
> > > > public override IRunInvoker GetInvoker(IRunInvoker
invoker)
> > > > {
> > > > return new RollBackRunInvoker(invoker);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > private class RollBackRunInvoker : DecoratorRunInvoker
> > > > {
> > > > public RollBackRunInvoker(IRunInvoker invoker)
:
> > > base(invoker) {}
> > > >
> > > > public override object Execute(object o, IList
args)
> > > > {
> > > > using (TransactionScope scope = new
> > > >
TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew))
> > > > {
> > > > return
base.Invoker.Execute(o, args);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MbUnit.User" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/MbUnitUser?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
