RE: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

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

I was expecting it has some intrusion like createMockObject that all =
mock libs would have, but that would be it.  I haven't looked at it yet =
and may react differently once I see it. =20

I do agree that there should be something as designs do tend to be =
cleaner when designing for tests upfront.
dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Nat Pryce [mailto:nat...@gm...]=20
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:51 AM
To: Dean Hiller
Cc: Thibaut Barr=E8re; Steve Freeman; Steve Baker; =
nmo...@li...
Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

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.  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.
> 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 =
our
> > > 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 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.
>