Nathan,My response to the profiler API argument is the same as it has always been. I don't care for that, so I am not going to spend time working on this. If I get a patch, then we can talk about it.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I've enjoyed using Rhino.Mocks, but I had a couple things I would like > to add to this discussion. > > I like the idea of having version 4.0 as a separate namespace if it's > going to break compatibility. > > I really think that Rhino.Mocks should add the capability using the > profiler API and thus the ability to mock out static functions and > other non-virtual functions. I realize that brings about a > philosophical debate to many people about the right way to code. > However, when I'm using a component or library that is out of my > control and I need the ability to mock it, then not being able to gets > in the way of me getting my work done and having unit testable code. > > On Sep 1, 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… > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
