I too am curious on the organizing around this... Do we need/want to set up something like tickets or use AgileZen (or other tools) for project purposes?
Tim On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Alex McMahon <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ayende, > > When you say "you are welcome to contribute" will you be organising > this in some way? will there be a list of tasks? > > I've not submitted a patch to Rhino Mocks before, but I'd be > interested in having a go at submitting one for 4.0. > > Do you think there will be tasks that could be tackled by someone > who's not already overly familiar with the code base? > > Regards > Alex McMahon > > 2009/9/1 Ayende Rahien <[email protected]>: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
