Re: [Nmock-general] FW: NMock, MSTest and Interface Implementation

[Jim A. <JA...@th...>]

I have some experience with IL generation (from NMock 1) so I could have a 
look at it if you like.  Nat told me he went with transparent proxies 
because it was just easier.

Jim




"Mike Capp" <mik...@gm...> 
Sent by: nmo...@li...
06/08/2007 18:46

To
"Steve Mitcham" <Ste...@ty...>, 
nmo...@li...
cc

Subject
Re: [Nmock-general] FW:  NMock, MSTest and Interface Implementation






(Wasn't subscribed to nmock-general, and the web archive seems to be
very tardy.)

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Steve
> Freeman
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:42 AM
>
> At this point, you guys /are/ the contributors. Mike, what do you
> think about the patch?

I'm fine with the patch in that it fixes a problem passes its own
tests and didn't break any of ours. My reservations were just that:

1) IIRC it's going back to runtime IL generation, and I don't have
enough of a mental model of how that works to predict with confidence
what will or won't or might be affected.

2) Given that this was pretty much how NMock 1 worked, I assumed that
Nat had reasons (aside from neophilia) for going the transparent proxy
route with NMock 2. Without knowing what those reasons were, it's hard
to weigh them.

Mike

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-general mailing list
Nmo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general