If you're getting rid of record/replay will you still use the underlying "guts" or will this be a ground up rewrite?
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> > > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
