Vincent Massol wrote: > I think what you're describing is a stub but not a mock. The advantage of a > dynamic mock is that you don't need to code any method. It's the user of the > mock which says what behavior it should have for the methods it calls on the > mock.
You're right, I've always referred to stubs incorrectly as mocks. I meant a stub. I think it's in our interest to produce these to make testing easier and more consistent for everyone. I'm interested to see your thoughts on the mocks eventually though - I've never really done anything with them since I was reading JiA (which I don't have any more :( - Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
