Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

Without any intrusion, how will it guide design?

--Nat.

On 4/21/05, Dean Hiller <dea...@bo...> wrote:
> 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.  I=
t 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 unstab=
le, it might be a bit harder to debug the problem which I wouldn't like.
> dean
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thibaut Barr=E8re [mailto:thi...@gm...]
> 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
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> any other opinion ?
>=20
> 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 ou=
r
> > > tests never hit a database. It is quick and easy :)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
>=20
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are f=
or the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privile=
ged 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 ad=
dressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from reading, printing, phot=
ocopying, distributing or otherwise using this e-mail or any attachments he=
reto 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.
>