|
From: Charlie P. <ch...@po...> - 2007-08-16 17:10:05
|
Does this project have a policy/vision/standard regarding portability? Specifically, do you plan to make sure things work on Mono? It seems like this would be a good time to decide on such things. Charlie > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Mike Capp > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:11 AM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Mock Object Factory > > On 16/08/07, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > > > > I've made the changes to the mock object factory code that > makes the > > generated type collection static to prevent run-away memory > usage with > > the mock objects, I'd like to get these changes into the > build if no > > one objects. We can investigate a solution with a more > robust proxy > > generator like Castle.DynamicProxy later. > > Do you have a rough performance comparison of old vs new > implementations for a reasonable-sized test corpus? That's my > only real concern. > > > Finally, It would be nice if everyone interested in helping in > > reviving the development and getting a release out ping the > list so we > > can start the planning process. > > *ping* > > Also, we badly need to decide how much longer we're going to > stay standardized on VS2003 solution/project files. I do > still have access to VS2003, but that's not going to last > forever, and having to make changes in there and patch them > across to my main environment for testing is a) fragile and > b) annoying. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and > a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> > http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |