> > Well, it's not simply a matter of US maintaining it. It's a matter of > it being maintained at all in light of the fact that mocha and > flexmock exist. Put simply, there never should have been an rspec mock > framework. > > But here we are. > > In my view, we either put the thing to sleep or keep it part of rspec > and forget the whole deprecation thing. Handling it off to someone > else to maintain seems silly to me.
Just to reiterate on my last point: There are some advantages to keeping the framework - namely that we won't have to convert a lot of specs. But there are other advantages, too. New features are easier for us to implement for ourselves. I've already had some ideas for how the mocking framework could become better (i.e. support for anonymous functions). I think if we keep it, we should be looking to implement some of those advantages that the other mocking frameworks don't have. We also have steam, which I don't think mocha and flexmock have (although I could be wrong about this). I just took a look at flexmock - and must say that I don't like the "partial mock" language, because it is confusing to my brain which distinguishes a stub from a mock. And mocha/stubba has an ugly syntax (In my humble, and inexperienced, opinion). If you did "put the thing [rspec's mocking framework] to sleep" - which would you covert to - Mocha, or Flexmock? Scott _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
