What's the rationale behind removing the integrated mocking framework? Can you not still use Mocha or FlexMock or whatever else you'd like to use still? Meanwhile, the integrated mocking framework in RSpec provides a ready and able mocking framework for anyone just starting out with RSpec. In my experience, people are more apt to begin to use a new thing if it's already there waiting for them.
Chris Pratt On 9/6/07, Christoph Sturm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/5/07, Steven R. Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wilson Bilkovich wrote: > > > On 9/5/07, Christoph Sturm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> One thing is clear, mocha is much nicer than the integrated mocking, > > >> nicer syntax, better errormessages, better everything. The rspec > > >> mocking framework could never compete with mocha or flexmock on its > > >> own. At the time it was created there were good reasons for that, > just > > >> like there are good reasons to deprecate it now. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > I would be 100% OK with this for version 1.1 or 1.2 or whatever, as > > > long as Mocha was the only 'recommendation', and the rspec gem had a > > > listed gem dependency on Mocha. > > > It's the 'choice' I object to, not the specifics of which mock > > > framework we happen to use. > > > > > To clarify, you just want a default mock framework, instead of being > > forced to make the decision yourself? > > > > Ok, I am in no way saying anything against flexmock, Its probably > great, but I never tried it. What I tried was rspec mocking and mocha, > and I liked mocha much better. > > And I do think there should be a default, for the generated code. > > regards > chris > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
