Menu
▾
▴
nmock-two-dev — Discussion of development of NMock 2
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(13) |
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
(99) |
Mar
(42) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(17) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(26) |
Dec
|
| 2007 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(21) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(21) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(33) |
Nov
(26) |
Dec
|
| 2008 |
Jan
(45) |
Feb
(8) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
|
From: Gary F. <sf_...@ma...> - 2006-02-14 21:10:24
|
Nat Pryce wrote:
>...
>E.g. I'd like the NMock API to eventually look like:
>
>mocks.expect(Once, delegate{ alarm.startPlaying(is.Equal("Radio 4")); });
>mocks.allow(delegate{ alarm.getVolume(); }).Return(10);
>
>Tim Mackinnon has implemented this style in Smalltalk and it looks lovely! See:
> http://www.macta.f2s.com/Thoughts/smock.html
>
>
I suppose one person's lovely is another's liver. Anything with
brackets going four levels deep violates my sense of aesthetics, all
the more so when they're not all the same sort of brackets, and they're
all on one line. In what way do you think this better than the current
syntax?
I looked at the Smalltalk example and it doesn't seem to have this
problem, but Smalltalk's syntax is quite different from the C family of
languages.
Gary
|
|
From: M. S. F. <va...@sc...> - 2006-02-14 00:45:32
|
Mike Mason wrote: > Thank you for your offers of content. Maybe we need an "advanced" > section where we can put that kind of stuff. If/when you're done, do > go ahead and blog it - if we're ready for that stuff we can cull it > for the NMock website too (with your permission). Good. Now I have more motivation to actually finish it. I have been meaning to update my blog to include a creative commons license. I will put that on my list of things to do, so that when the time comes you, won't have to ask for permission. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-14 00:39:10
|
On 2/13/06, sco...@rk... <sco...@rk...> wrote: > > The only real complaint that I have is against the JavaScript links. I > like to open embedded links in another tab and then continue reading, but > with the JavaScript links the page has to load in the current tab. I thin= k > this is pretty limiting, and would move for the use of actual links. Is t= his > the Ajax stuff that you are referring to? > Yeah it is, and judging by the feedback from everyone else it definitely ha= s to go. I just wanted to be able to generate templated pages without using a= n actual templating system, but it looks like it's not as groovy as it ought to be. I'll go back through Nat's comments on how they did the jMock site and try and steal that. I'm quite happy with the layout and "clean" look though, so will prolly stick with the current CSS. Thank you for your offers of content. Maybe we need an "advanced" section where we can put that kind of stuff. If/when you're done, do go ahead and blog it - if we're ready for that stuff we can cull it for the NMock websit= e too (with your permission). Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-13 21:51:34
|
On 13 Feb 2006, at 21:19, Mike Mason wrote: > On 2/10/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: >> >> Oh, and it also removes all the navigation links when the pages are >> printed and turns URLs into numbered footnotes. This is all very >> useful for articles, tutorials and reference docs. > I think you're right that the Ajax approach is probably inferior to > flat > HTML, however it is kinda fun and does work pretty well. We'll look at > figuring out a simple website generation/publishing mechanism. I'd recommend just typing everything in to start with, rather than than using Ajax for this. > What d'you think about the content we currently have there? Not all > of it is > filled in yet, in particular the tutorial isn't there but would be > a larger > themed example of how to do all the usual stuff in NMock - mocks, > expectations, exception throwing, validation. > > I've slapped it up on the web so people don't have to trawl through > CVS: > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ A good start. S. |
|
From: Mike R. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-13 21:47:14
|
On 13/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > I've slapped it up on the web so people don't have to trawl through CVS: Thanks. I just had a quick scan - the content's looking good so far. I'm not a fan of the techy stuff though - it doesn't honour 'back' but maybe I'm just being picky. :) I've been using NMock 1 for ages, and I'm alright with it, but that's probably because I originally used it in the office it was largely written in. Definitely looking forward to giving NMock2 ago. I should really just try it out in one of my open source projects... Cheers, Mike -- mike roberts | http://www.mikebroberts.com/ |
|
From: <sco...@rk...> - 2006-02-13 21:46:49
|
I like the content. It is a really good start. I especially like the cheat sheet. I do have a few suggestions, though. =20 Add a section to get contributors started that answers the following questions. Where to send patches? Should the patches include tests? (YES :-)) What are the style rules, if any? How to become a contributor?=20 =20 Add a section for more advanced topics. How to write a custom matcher? (You can do that! Gasp! :-)) How to write a custom action? I have some draft (really rough) content that I have been slowly working on for my blog that I am willing to contribute for this part of the site. If you guys don't thing it belongs on the site, then I will still post it on my blog. =20 The only real complaint that I have is against the JavaScript links. I like to open embedded links in another tab and then continue reading, but with the JavaScript links the page has to load in the current tab. I think this is pretty limiting, and would move for the use of actual links. Is this the Ajax stuff that you are referring to? =20 Good work, Mike.=20 =20 -Scott =20 ________________________________ From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Mike Mason Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:19 PM To: nmo...@li... Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Current state of NMock2 and .Net mock libraries =20 On 2/10/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: Oh, and it also removes all the navigation links when the pages are printed and turns URLs into numbered footnotes. This is all very useful for articles, tutorials and reference docs. I think you're right that the Ajax approach is probably inferior to flat HTML, however it is kinda fun and does work pretty well. We'll look at figuring out a simple website generation/publishing mechanism.=20 =20 Before we designed the jMock site we (Steve, myself, Joe and anyone else who was in the pub) sat down at XTC and did some stereotypical=20 user analysis. Based on that analysis we designed the navigation menu and panels on the front page. We have tweaked them based on user feedback, but the original analysis was pretty spot on I think. It's a very useful technique.=20 What d'you think about the content we currently have there? Not all of it is filled in yet, in particular the tutorial isn't there but would be a larger themed example of how to do all the usual stuff in NMock - mocks, expectations, exception throwing, validation.=20 I've slapped it up on the web so people don't have to trawl through CVS: http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-13 21:19:31
|
On 2/10/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > Oh, and it also removes all the navigation links when the pages are > printed and turns URLs into numbered footnotes. This is all very > useful for articles, tutorials and reference docs. I think you're right that the Ajax approach is probably inferior to flat HTML, however it is kinda fun and does work pretty well. We'll look at figuring out a simple website generation/publishing mechanism. Before we designed the jMock site we (Steve, myself, Joe and anyone > else who was in the pub) sat down at XTC and did some stereotypical > user analysis. Based on that analysis we designed the navigation menu > and panels on the front page. We have tweaked them based on user > feedback, but the original analysis was pretty spot on I think. It's > a very useful technique. What d'you think about the content we currently have there? Not all of it i= s filled in yet, in particular the tutorial isn't there but would be a larger themed example of how to do all the usual stuff in NMock - mocks, expectations, exception throwing, validation. I've slapped it up on the web so people don't have to trawl through CVS: http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-13 21:12:27
|
On 2/10/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > I hate to say it, but that's what you get for using unstable code. NMock is absolutely horrible to use and I could not advocate it on projects= . Not being able to adequately mock stuff makes TDD fall apart. For me to be able to work on a .NET project I *need* NMock2. Please don't give me grief for using "pre alpha" software when the alternatives are unusable. I'd rather see a clean API, since it's going to be used by many > people, than support projects that are using pre-alpha code. So when is this thing going to see the light of day? Do you have any time t= o work on it? At this point I'm inclined to take what's there, fix the most obvious bugs/weirdness, and ship the thing. It's tons better than NMock 1.xalready. I'm sad that the code has been stagnant for the last 8 months and I'd like to get it out the door, but we currently do not have the capabilit= y to do yet another rewrite. I think we have the resources to release and support the current code, and to incrementally improve it as people ask for new features. I agree that we don't want to just poop out something half assed, but I think what's there is not half assed or poopy. I think it's pretty good. Release often and early, and all that. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-13 18:38:22
|
Thanks all. I've got some minor changes to check in, but I don't want to do so without compiling and testing them on my own box. --Nat On 2/13/06, sco...@rk... <sco...@rk...> wrote: > I thought of another option on my way into work this morning. You could > convert the project to MSBuild, and then try out XBuild[1], the Mono > MSBuild implementation. > > [1]: http://svn.myrealbox.com/source/trunk/mcs/tools/xbuild/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmock-two-dev- > > ad...@li...] On Behalf Of M. Scott Ford > > Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:29 AM > > To: nmo...@li... > > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Anybody got NMock2 building on Mono? > > > > I got it to compile. There is a sln to makefile program that is part > of > > the Mono installation. It converts to MonoDevelop/SharpDevelop, too. I > > don't remember the exact application name any more. But I have > attached > > the make file that it generated. It should get you started. > > > > Mike Roberts wrote: > > > > >On 10/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>The NAnt config that's been checked in doesn't work with the Mono > > >>1.1.8.3 install on on my machine, complaining that it can't find a > > >>package config for mono. Anybody tried to compile on Linux before? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >Hi Nat, > > > > > >I don't beleive the <solution> target works on Mono. The NAnt team > > >need to get it able to target the mono compiler rather than csc and I > > >don't think they've done that yet. > > > > > >For CCNet (which we almost have fully working on Mono) I just let > > >CCNetLive produce the compiled zips, then I run that under Linux. Its > > >a pain, but less of a pain that (a) fixing up <solution> or (b) > > >maintaining two different compilation definitions in the NAnt / > > >solution / .csproj files. > > > > > >Mike > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- > > >This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through > log > > files > > >for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > > >searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD > SPLUNK! > > >http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > > >_______________________________________________ > > >NMock-two-dev mailing list > > >NMo...@li... > > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi= les > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: <sco...@rk...> - 2006-02-13 13:00:19
|
I thought of another option on my way into work this morning. You could convert the project to MSBuild, and then try out XBuild[1], the Mono MSBuild implementation. [1]: http://svn.myrealbox.com/source/trunk/mcs/tools/xbuild/ > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmock-two-dev- > ad...@li...] On Behalf Of M. Scott Ford > Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:29 AM > To: nmo...@li... > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Anybody got NMock2 building on Mono? >=20 > I got it to compile. There is a sln to makefile program that is part of > the Mono installation. It converts to MonoDevelop/SharpDevelop, too. I > don't remember the exact application name any more. But I have attached > the make file that it generated. It should get you started. >=20 > Mike Roberts wrote: >=20 > >On 10/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > > > > >>The NAnt config that's been checked in doesn't work with the Mono > >>1.1.8.3 install on on my machine, complaining that it can't find a > >>package config for mono. Anybody tried to compile on Linux before? > >> > >> > >> > > > >Hi Nat, > > > >I don't beleive the <solution> target works on Mono. The NAnt team > >need to get it able to target the mono compiler rather than csc and I > >don't think they've done that yet. > > > >For CCNet (which we almost have fully working on Mono) I just let > >CCNetLive produce the compiled zips, then I run that under Linux. Its > >a pain, but less of a pain that (a) fixing up <solution> or (b) > >maintaining two different compilation definitions in the NAnt / > >solution / .csproj files. > > > >Mike > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- > >This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > files > >for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > >searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > = >http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > >_______________________________________________ > >NMock-two-dev mailing list > >NMo...@li... > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > > > |
|
From: M. S. F. <va...@sc...> - 2006-02-11 16:28:54
|
I got it to compile. There is a sln to makefile program that is part of the Mono installation. It converts to MonoDevelop/SharpDevelop, too. I don't remember the exact application name any more. But I have attached the make file that it generated. It should get you started. Mike Roberts wrote: >On 10/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > >>The NAnt config that's been checked in doesn't work with the Mono >>1.1.8.3 install on on my machine, complaining that it can't find a >>package config for mono. Anybody tried to compile on Linux before? >> >> >> > >Hi Nat, > >I don't beleive the <solution> target works on Mono. The NAnt team >need to get it able to target the mono compiler rather than csc and I >don't think they've done that yet. > >For CCNet (which we almost have fully working on Mono) I just let >CCNetLive produce the compiled zips, then I run that under Linux. Its >a pain, but less of a pain that (a) fixing up <solution> or (b) >maintaining two different compilation definitions in the NAnt / >solution / .csproj files. > >Mike > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files >for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes >searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! >http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=k&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 >_______________________________________________ >NMock-two-dev mailing list >NMo...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > |
|
From: Mike R. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-11 09:55:59
|
On 10/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > The NAnt config that's been checked in doesn't work with the Mono > 1.1.8.3 install on on my machine, complaining that it can't find a > package config for mono. Anybody tried to compile on Linux before? > Hi Nat, I don't beleive the <solution> target works on Mono. The NAnt team need to get it able to target the mono compiler rather than csc and I don't think they've done that yet. For CCNet (which we almost have fully working on Mono) I just let CCNetLive produce the compiled zips, then I run that under Linux. Its a pain, but less of a pain that (a) fixing up <solution> or (b) maintaining two different compilation definitions in the NAnt / solution / .csproj files. Mike |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-10 20:06:01
|
The NAnt config that's been checked in doesn't work with the Mono 1.1.8.3 install on on my machine, complaining that it can't find a package config for mono. Anybody tried to compile on Linux before? --Nat. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-10 17:57:08
|
Oh, and it also removes all the navigation links when the pages are printed and turns URLs into numbered footnotes. This is all very useful for articles, tutorials and reference docs. Before we designed the jMock site we (Steve, myself, Joe and anyone else who was in the pub) sat down at XTC and did some stereotypical user analysis. Based on that analysis we designed the navigation menu and panels on the front page. We have tweaked them based on user feedback, but the original analysis was pretty spot on I think. It's a very useful technique. --Nat On 2/10/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > What does that get us over flat HTML and how will that affect > google-ability? The jMock site is nothing but flat HTML pages with no > dynamic content. It loads fast and is easy to index by search > engines. > > --Nat. > > On 2/6/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > I've been fooling around with CSS and Ajax to make the site more Web 2.= 0 > > compliant. > > > > *ducks* > > > > Seriously though, what I've done is made a bunch of static HTML that ge= ts > > dynamically loaded into the front page when you click on navigation lin= ks. > > I'm not the world's most eminent CSS guru so it all looks very basic, b= ut I > > think I've demonstrated roughly how it would work. If anyone's interest= ed > > it's in the nmock2/src/WebSite directory, any feedback appreciated. > > > > Cheers, > > Mike. > > > |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-10 17:26:25
|
What does that get us over flat HTML and how will that affect google-ability? The jMock site is nothing but flat HTML pages with no dynamic content. It loads fast and is easy to index by search engines. --Nat. On 2/6/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > I've been fooling around with CSS and Ajax to make the site more Web 2.0 > compliant. > > *ducks* > > Seriously though, what I've done is made a bunch of static HTML that gets > dynamically loaded into the front page when you click on navigation links= . > I'm not the world's most eminent CSS guru so it all looks very basic, but= I > think I've demonstrated roughly how it would work. If anyone's interested > it's in the nmock2/src/WebSite directory, any feedback appreciated. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-10 15:03:32
|
I'd like NMock2 to work with all .NET 2 features. I suspect that
users will expect it to do so, in part because the version numbers are
the same.
However, in C#2 you can make the mocking API much nicer and
refactoring-friendly with anonymous delegates.
E.g. I'd like the NMock API to eventually look like:
mocks.expect(Once, delegate{ alarm.startPlaying(is.Equal("Radio 4")); });
mocks.allow(delegate{ alarm.getVolume(); }).Return(10);
Tim Mackinnon has implemented this style in Smalltalk and it looks lovely! =
See:
http://www.macta.f2s.com/Thoughts/smock.html
--Nat.
On 2/9/06, Ian Cooper <ian...@ya...> wrote:
> With .NET 2.0 we have support for generics. We are now
> actively using them both for collections and generic
> interfaces.
>
> Of course this gives us grief in the 1.1 version of
> NMock, because it knows nothing about interfaces.
>
> It causes particular trouble if you interact with
> classes that implement IFoo<T> and you want to mock
> that interaction.
>
> So any idea which version of the framework NMock2 will
> target and whether interface support will be part of that.
>
> Ian Cooper
> 0208-672-0717(H)07970-411892 (M)
>
> "Give the kids tools, so they can go build their own houses; not the blue=
print of what the houses should be."
> Tori Amos
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voic=
email http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi=
les
> for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat=
=3D121642
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>
|
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-10 12:51:12
|
I hate to say it, but that's what you get for using unstable code. I'd rather see a clean API, since it's going to be used by many people, than support projects that are using pre-alpha code. Changing over should be a simple matter of find-and-replace in all files followed by run-the-tests, so should only take a few minutes. (If all goes well). --Nat On 2/7/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 2/2/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > The tricky issue is the namespace. If we change the namespace to > > NMock2 we allow the same assembly to compile against NMock1 and NMock2 > > simultaneously. On the other hand, it's butt ugly. The only code > > that will use NMock2 is test code. If some projects that want to use > > both versions, it's not a big deal to have two test assemblies for the > > same tested assembly, one test assembly using NMock1, one using > > NMock2. So I suggest using NMock for the namespace name as well. > > > > The problem here is that we already have (at least) 3 real projects using > the NMock2 namespace because that's what's used in the currently checked = in > code. If we change the namespace, those projects will have to touch all o= f > their tests in order to use NMock 2.0. Do we have any other reasons for n= ot > using the NMock2 namespace? > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Ian C. <ian...@ya...> - 2006-02-09 19:13:04
|
With .NET 2.0 we have support for generics. We are now actively using them both for collections and generic interfaces. Of course this gives us grief in the 1.1 version of NMock, because it knows nothing about interfaces. It causes particular trouble if you interact with classes that implement IFoo<T> and you want to mock that interaction. So any idea which version of the framework NMock2 will target and whether interface support will be part of that. Ian Cooper 0208-672-0717(H)07970-411892 (M) "Give the kids tools, so they can go build their own houses; not the blueprint of what the houses should be." Tori Amos ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-07 19:15:23
|
On 2/2/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > The tricky issue is the namespace. If we change the namespace to > NMock2 we allow the same assembly to compile against NMock1 and NMock2 > simultaneously. On the other hand, it's butt ugly. The only code > that will use NMock2 is test code. If some projects that want to use > both versions, it's not a big deal to have two test assemblies for the > same tested assembly, one test assembly using NMock1, one using > NMock2. So I suggest using NMock for the namespace name as well. > The problem here is that we already have (at least) 3 real projects using the NMock2 namespace because that's what's used in the currently checked in code. If we change the namespace, those projects will have to touch all of their tests in order to use NMock 2.0. Do we have any other reasons for not using the NMock2 namespace? Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-06 21:22:31
|
I've been fooling around with CSS and Ajax to make the site more Web 2.0compliant. *ducks* Seriously though, what I've done is made a bunch of static HTML that gets dynamically loaded into the front page when you click on navigation links. I'm not the world's most eminent CSS guru so it all looks very basic, but I think I've demonstrated roughly how it would work. If anyone's interested it's in the nmock2/src/WebSite directory, any feedback appreciated. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Joe W. <jo...@tr...> - 2006-02-03 21:14:35
|
The current NMock site lives in the NMock CVS repo (on SF) under the website module. It's a Java based website, deployed into a Servlet container and uses SiteMesh. I just ripped off the Maven look (yurggh), but it has no Maven involved. I would go with Nat's suggestion and use the XStream or jMock site as they are generate offline as static content so don't need a Servlet engine. You can grab the XStream site by "svn co https://svn.codehaus.org/xstream/trunk/xstream-website" -Joe On 2/3/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > I'd take the XStream or jMock site source as a starter and change the > templates and content. The jMock site has a templating system I wrote > in Ruby. XStream uses Velocity or static mesh or something in Java. > > Either way, it's a great way to manage the site. Check unadorned > XHTML content into the repository and let the CI build skin the > content with navigation elements and drop the enriched XHTML documents > into the HTTP server's directory. It makes site management really > easy. And, for an added benefit, you don't have to use Maven. > > --Nat. > > On 2/3/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > On 2/3/06, Joe Walnes <jo...@tr...> wrote: > > > > Who's in charge of the nmock.org homepage? > > > > > > That'll be me. > > > > > > Anything you need, just ask me. I'm actually keen to get it off my > > > server - maybe it could be hosted by SF or TW? > > > > > > > Site looks like it's generated from Maven or something (SiteMesh?), but= I > > don't see the source for it in the nmock CVS repos. Do you have it kick= ing > > around anywhere? If not, no big deal, we can suck the HTML off onto > > SourceForge fairly easily. > > > > Anyone got suggestions for creating a simple NMock (2) website? I'd hap= pily > > hand code HTML but I just know you're all itching to suggest better/sex= ier > > ways of doing it. > > > > Cheers, > > Mike. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi= les > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-03 20:43:48
|
I'd take the XStream or jMock site source as a starter and change the templates and content. The jMock site has a templating system I wrote in Ruby. XStream uses Velocity or static mesh or something in Java. Either way, it's a great way to manage the site. Check unadorned XHTML content into the repository and let the CI build skin the content with navigation elements and drop the enriched XHTML documents into the HTTP server's directory. It makes site management really easy. And, for an added benefit, you don't have to use Maven. --Nat. On 2/3/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 2/3/06, Joe Walnes <jo...@tr...> wrote: > > > Who's in charge of the nmock.org homepage? > > > > That'll be me. > > > > Anything you need, just ask me. I'm actually keen to get it off my > > server - maybe it could be hosted by SF or TW? > > > > Site looks like it's generated from Maven or something (SiteMesh?), but I > don't see the source for it in the nmock CVS repos. Do you have it kickin= g > around anywhere? If not, no big deal, we can suck the HTML off onto > SourceForge fairly easily. > > Anyone got suggestions for creating a simple NMock (2) website? I'd happi= ly > hand code HTML but I just know you're all itching to suggest better/sexie= r > ways of doing it. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-03 18:43:29
|
On 2/3/06, Joe Walnes <jo...@tr...> wrote: > > > Who's in charge of the nmock.org homepage? > > That'll be me. > > Anything you need, just ask me. I'm actually keen to get it off my > server - maybe it could be hosted by SF or TW? > Site looks like it's generated from Maven or something (SiteMesh?), but I don't see the source for it in the nmock CVS repos. Do you have it kicking around anywhere? If not, no big deal, we can suck the HTML off onto SourceForge fairly easily. Anyone got suggestions for creating a simple NMock (2) website? I'd happily hand code HTML but I just know you're all itching to suggest better/sexier ways of doing it. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-03 18:05:49
|
Rock! On 2/3/06, Mike Roberts <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 02/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > > The build file is nmock2.build, target is cruise, I've added nant to th= e > > tools folder as we chatted about on IM. Attached is what I think the CC= Net > > config for the project should look like. I think you'll need to check o= ut > > from CVS to get Cruise going, make sure you remember it's the nmock2 mo= dule, > > not the nmock module. > > Now added to CCNetLive (http://ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com/ccnet/), and > builds are getting published at > http://ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com/NMock2-Builds/ . > > Mike > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi= les > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Mike R. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-03 18:03:55
|
On 02/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > The build file is nmock2.build, target is cruise, I've added nant to the > tools folder as we chatted about on IM. Attached is what I think the CCNe= t > config for the project should look like. I think you'll need to check out > from CVS to get Cruise going, make sure you remember it's the nmock2 modu= le, > not the nmock module. Now added to CCNetLive (http://ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com/ccnet/), and builds are getting published at http://ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com/NMock2-Builds/ . Mike |
9 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
