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

[Steve M. <Ste...@ty...>]

I've asked that question myself, and the fact is (for me anyway),  I
find myself fighting rhino when writing the tests that I have to write.
The Play/Replay syntax gets in the way of my thinking process and my
productivity is much slower.  It's faster now that I've mounted the
curve, but I still prefer the NMock2 interface.

The other issue for me is that it took about two years to sell mock
objects to my managers, and I'm not in a position to turn around and say
"The tool I backed is dead, train everyone on this other tool".

As Oren has said in posts about some of his other effort,  it isn't so
much a competition as it is building a tool that works best for me in my
environment.  I'm willing to step up and continue to maintain the tool,
since if it dies, our changes to the library will just result in an
internal tool anyway, and I'd prefer to get the changes out to the
community.

-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Steve
Freeman
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:21 PM
To: nmo...@li...
Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] FW: NMock, MSTest and Interface
Implementation

Which begs the question, much as I dislike its syntax, as to whether =20
we should all just use Rhino.

S

On 6 Aug 2007, at 14:16, Jim Arnold wrote:
> I would much rather see NMock 2 use a mature code-gen =20
> implementation (such
> as Castle Proxy) which has already solved these problems.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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