I would like to request that this thread be considered closed (though as a moderator I am not going to actually bother to CLOSE it at this point).
The OP's specific question has been answered directly (i.e., you cannot easily mock XElement using RM b/c most of its methods aren't virtual/overridable and in most foreseeable use-cases there probably isn't a need to mock XElement anyway). Given the limited information offered, an alternate approach was suggested if the OP really *does* need to mock XElement (i.e., create a simple wrapper class for XElement and mock that instead). And the pros and cons of that alternate suggestion have been discussed/debated pretty clearly such that the OP should be able to make an informed decision re: how best to proceed. Requests for additional information about the context of the request/need to mock XElement do not appear to be forthcoming at this point and IMO further discussion of this issue is probably counter-productive unless/until additional context info comes to light that would suggest a different recommended way to proceed. Thanks, Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:28 AM, bill richards <[email protected] > wrote: > Gary : I'm doing XXX, what am I doing wrong? > Bill : What you're doing wrong is XXX, you should do YYY > Patrick : You can't do XXX > Gary : Bill, I don't like it that you have told me what I am doing > wrong, so mind your own business, and anyway you don't have all the > facts. > Patrick : Um, that was pretty rude. Based on the very small > example you gave and the problems you described, his reply was spot- > on, and you can't do XXX. > Bill : Based on what you have told us, and answering the originally > posted question, i.e. I'm doing XXX, What am I doing wrong? What you > are doing wrong is attempting XXX, which you cannot do, what you > should do is YYY. > Gavin : You could provide a wrapper for XXX because you can't > do XXX > Bill : That is correct Gavin, but there is no need to even attempt to > do XXX, which we all agree, is not possible, and therefore no need to > provide a wrapper for XXX in order to enable it, one should simply do > YYY > Gavin : Agreed > Gary : Bill, even though I'm here because I don't know what to do, I > am telling you that you are wrong because it is imperative, for > reasons I will not divulge, that I do XXX, so stop being so clever as > knowing the answer to the question I posted and tell me the answer to > the new version, i.e. I am doing XXX and I'm not giving you all the > facts, what am I doing wrong?. > Gary : Bill, even though it has been plainly stated that I cannot do > XXX I am going to find my own answer and not listen to what is said by > people who clearly know more on this subject than I, because there is > some piece of information that I am witholding. > Stephen : Perhaps you could tell us this missing information, this > thing that makes it impossible to do something other than XXX, which > cannot be done anyway, because quite frankly it has elluded everyone > who has posted on this thread. > > Gary, as you can see, you have demonstrated the only arrogance > exhibited within this thread. > > You asked a question, it was answered. If you cannot see it, it is > very difficult to categorize you. > Good luck. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Rhino.Mocks" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rhinomocks?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino.Mocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhinomocks?hl=en.
