> That being said, you should mock the interface, not the implementation.
This is my belief too, however I cannot do that using RM 3.6, and my investigations have lead me to believe that one could instead mock the implementation ... I seem to be going around in circels! On Sep 8, 5:02 pm, Kenneth Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > > I (wrongly it would seem) deduced that it was virtual since it is > > declared in the IUnityContainer interface .... now I'm in fear of not > > knowing anything!! What is an interface if not a bunch of virtual > > members? > > Virtual member and interface members are very different. I don't have > a link handy but there are a lot of talks you can google, or go direct > to C# language specification. > > I understand your point and believe everything should just be virtual > like Java. While I do love property, delegate, event, lamba and etc in > .Net, IMHO, this virtual/non-virtual thing is just unnecessary > complication introduced by M$ to say, hey .Net has one more feature > then Java. > > That being said, you should mock the interface, not the implementation. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
