[rspec-devel] mock framework

[David Chelimsky]

On 8/24/07, Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Most people use what is by default. Others do not care whether there is
> a default framework, they use what they like or need. So I find process
> of making decision on this endless.
>
> You may add an option to rspec generator and raise an exception if user
> do not specify what mocking framework to use. You may extract current
> one that RSpec uses. All these efforts will be confusing for most of
> RSpec users who just want stuff work, not be "vendor neutral".
>
> The only benefit I see is that you can end up using the same framework
> Test::Unit does.

Huh? Test::Unit does not use any mock framework that I'm aware of.

> And yes, you still have to use something by default
> (people will be telling you you prefer it, think about it). This will
> make a transition from T::U to RSpec a bit easier.
>
> In the long run this is a useless move to me.

For me, maintaining RSpec's mocking framework, which does have feature
requests and bug reports from time to time, is more burden on the
project over the long haul than a bit of pain right now. And it really
doesn't add any value over mocha or flexmock. If it did, that would be
a different story. But I'd rather see our efforts focused on improving
things that are unique to RSpec.

So I don't see this as a useless exercise at all.

> We're better concentrate
> on RBehave merging and so forth.

That's certainly higher priority. Good point. But that doesn't mean it
has to be exclusive of other initiatives.

Cheers,
David


>
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> > One thing I do NOT want to do is have RSpec prefer one framework over
> > another.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> --
> MK
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>