I think we can pretty much kill it. If they need backward compact, they can use 3.6
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Tim Barcz <[email protected]> wrote: > Do we need to kill backwards compatibility. I'm working on a patch/spike > where the class Fake is used which really just calls MockRepository under > the hood? > > Thoughts? > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is a blog post that would show up day after tomorrow, I am posting it >> here to get some traction in the mailing list before we make it really >> public. >> >> Well, now that Rhino Mocks 3.6 is out of the way, we need to think about >> what the next version will look like. >> >> Initially, I thought to match Rhino Mocks 4.0 to the .NET 4.0 release and >> support mocking dynamic variables, but while this is still on the planning >> board, I think that it is much more important to stop and take a look at >> where Rhino Mocks is now and where we would like it to be. >> >> I started Rhino Mocks about 5 years ago, and the codebase has stood well >> in the test of time. There aren’t any nasty places and we can keep releasing >> new features with no major issues. >> >> However, 5 years ago the community perception of mocking was different >> than what it is now. Rhino Mocks hasn’t really changed significantly since >> it 1.1 days, for that matter, you can take a code base using Rhino Mocks for >> .Net 1.1 and move it to Rhino Mocks 3.6 with no issues. >> >> But one of the most frequent complaints that I have heard is that Rhino >> Mocks API has became too complex over the years, there are too many options >> and knobs that you can turn. I know that my own style of interaction testing >> has changed as well. >> >> The current plan for Rhino Mocks 4.0 is that we will break backward >> compatibility in a big way. That means that we are going to drastically >> simplify everything in the framework. >> >> We are still discussing this in the mailing list, but currently it looks >> like we will go with the following route: >> >> - Kill the dynamic, strict, partial and stub terminology. No one >> cares. It is a fake. >> - Remove the record / playback API. The AAA method is much simpler. >> - Simplify mocking options, aiming at moving as much as possible from >> expectation style to assert style. >> - Keep as much of the current capabilities as we can. That means that >> if Rhino Mocks was able to support a scenario, it should still support it >> for the 4.0 version, hopefully in a simpler fashion. >> >> The end result is putting Rhino Mocks on an API diet. I am looking for >> help in doing this, both in terms of suggested syntax and in terms of actual >> patches. >> >> You are welcome to contribute… >> >> >> > > > -- > Tim Barcz > Microsoft ASPInsider > http://timbarcz.devlicio.us > http://www.twitter.com/timbarcz > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino.Mocks" 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/rhinomocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
