RE: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

[Dean H. <dea...@Bo...>]

Very interesting.  Hibernate does the same thing(and I assume NHibernate =
also).  In practice, you never even notice the intrusion.  You write =
plain old java beans and you can get rid of Hibernate at will because of =
that.  It is quite nice.  I am thinking the route TypeMock took may be =
nice also as I don't see the intrusion therefore it doesn't exist :).  =
Well, it exists, but I am not sure it bothers me as long as it is =
stable.  If it was unstable, it might be a bit harder to debug the =
problem which I wouldn't like. =20
dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Thibaut Barr=E8re [mailto:thi...@gm...]=20
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:16 AM
To: Steve Freeman
Cc: Steve Baker; Dean Hiller; <nmo...@li...>; Nat =
Pryce
Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

A small note on TypeMock; after reading a few docs, it seems that the
approach (at least for real typemocks) is quite different : it seems
to be instrumenting the IL (this allow more things without redesigning
at all, but is also more instrusive IMHO).

any other opinion ?

2005/4/20, Steve Freeman <st...@m3...>:
> On 19 Apr 2005, at 21:28, Steve Baker wrote:
> > Yeah, it is a rather dead mailing list :(
> >
> > I use NMock, never looked at TypeMock though.
> >
> > Nmock has almost always had everything I needed. We even use it to
> > Mock out our SqlHelper class (slightly modified from DAAB) so that =
our
> > tests never hit a database. It is quick and easy :)
>=20
> Not dead, just not very active :) largely because no-one has been
> asking for stuff. That said, Nat has started work on porting our jMock
> experience to C# and has come up with some very nice constructs.
> Unfortunately, his day job seems to keep getting in the way :) Watch
> this space.
>=20
> S.
>=20
>

--------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are =
for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, =
privileged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this =
e-mail is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this =
e-mail to the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from =
reading, printing, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this =
e-mail or any attachments hereto in any way. If the recipient has =
received this e-mail in error, please send return e-mail immediately =
notifying us of your receipt of this e-mail and delete the e-mail from =
your inbox. Thank you.