I think killing backwards compatibility is a must have. Is that what you mean?
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Shane C <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think backwards compatibility is a must have. Presenting on and > teaching Rhino Mocks to a new team has gotten silly because of how big > the API has gotten. I would gladly stick with Rhino Mocks 3.6 where > currently used and Rhino Mocks 4.0 for new stuff... > > On Sep 1, 10:19 am, 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 ASPInsiderhttp://timbarcz.devlicio.ushttp:// > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
