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

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

Yeah.  I was porting Java classes over from OO-Matron Java to .NET.  I
always intended to bring the original NMock bytecode generator into NMock2
if I couldn't find an alternative.  However, I wanted to reduce the
maintenance burden that bytecode generation would bring so my preference was
to find a bytecode generator maintained by someone else.  In JMock we use
CGLIB so we haven't had to write our own.  (We've also palmed off all the
constraints to the Hamcrest project.)

--Nat

On 06/08/07, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote:
>
>  Here's the factory class I proposed to Mike.  The only change in other
> files is that the direct constructor to the MockObject is removed and this
> factory method is put it it's place.
>
>
>
> The other difference is that the MockObject class needed to be made public
> so the dynamic assembly could see it.
>
> *From:* nmo...@li... [mailto:
> nmo...@li...] *On Behalf Of *Jim Arnold
> *Sent:* Monday, August 06, 2007 12:52 PM
> *To:* mik...@gm...
> *Cc:* nmo...@li...;
> nmo...@li...
> *Subject:* Re: [Nmock-general] FW: NMock, MSTest and Interface
> Implementation
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>