RE: [Nmock-general] Mocking types with constructors

[Mike B. <mbr...@vi...>]

Was that feature added to Nmock recently?  Does it also exist in the Java
mock objects framework?  I have used both and didn't know such a feature
existed in either.

Is an object with a mock derived class but real base class really a mock
object?  Shouldn't it be all or nothing?  What good is a hybrid?

It seems more useful to me to treat the class and its base clases as a
single interface and create a mock implementation of that interface
replacing the real implementation.

Please explain your reasoning.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Arnold [mailto:JA...@th...]
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 11:44 AM
> To: mbr...@vi...
> Cc: nmo...@li...;
> nmo...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Nmock-general] Mocking types with constructors
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, currently NMock allows you to mock classes with empty
> constructors. You get back a subclass with a real class as
> its base.  What I'm proposing is to remove the limitation on
> empty constructors by either *not* calling any constructor on
> the base, or by allowing the user to pass parameters into
> GetMockInstance() which would be used to construct the base with.
>
> Jim
>