I wasn't, do listen to that, it is somewhere in the first 15 minutes. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Tim Barcz <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was being facetious ... > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hm, listen to my DNR from Oredev about Rhino Mocks.Specifically, to Carl >> asking what Rhino Mocks is. >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Tim Barcz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ....ah...yes I see...we need a Wizard (very good, let's do it!). >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Jason Meckley <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Alex, a simpler API would lower the entry level. But lets also not >>>> forget (as much as we want to) the entry level for .net development is >>>> "where is the IDE Wizard?" >>>> that said moving the old syntax to another namespace still makes the >>>> option available and can confuse the developer. If you're trying to >>>> reduce the surface area, and reduce friction; move the old >>>> functionality to another assembly (Rhino.Mocks.OldSchool.dll). This >>>> way the user needs 2 assemblies for backwards compatibility. moving >>>> forward (4.1?) Rhino.Mocks.OldSchool.dll is dropped altogether. >>>> >>>> On Sep 1, 12:55 pm, Alex McMahon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > I think a good goal is to reduce the barrier to entry of Rhino Mocks. >>>> > I see a lot of questions being asked on the mailing list that are a >>>> > result of new users trying to get to grips with the tooling and >>>> > wandering down paths that lead to the same common errors, e.g. mixing >>>> > different syntaxes together. >>>> > >>>> > If we can achieve this without losing any functionality or syntaxes >>>> > then that seems ok, but the default and easiest exploration path >>>> > should be limited to the chosen syntax (AAA). >>>> > >>>> > Perhaps this means moving all the classes relating to older syntaxes >>>> > into a different namespace (Rhino.Mocks.Interop? probably a better >>>> > name would be needed) so people can upgrade to 4.0 and keep everything >>>> > the same by just adding a using to this namespace. Then in the main >>>> > namespace (Rhino.Mocks) we keep as small a surface area so that a new >>>> > user could pretty much get started just by using intellisense. >>>> > >>>> > When a user starts using the Interop namespace and getting it all >>>> > mixed up leading to asking the questions (as I'm sure some will) we >>>> > can say "The Interop namespace is designed only for backwards >>>> > compatibility scenarios, please use the Rhino.Mocks.Fake class and >>>> seehttp://ayende.com/wiki/Rhino+Mocks.ashxfor usage details" >>>> > >>>> > 2009/9/1 Tim Barcz <[email protected]>: >>>> > >>>> > > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
