Gennady, Recently I've came across discussion about extending the Boost.Test framework with a mocking capabilities: http://old.nabble.com/Interest-check:-Boost.Mock-td23958875.html I've even found a new header file mock_object.hpp within the 1_41 distribution, but not any documentation yet. There was a question about BMock library I developed and presented about at BoostCon09. The main differentiator of BMock from the rest of C++ frameworks I'm familiar with (except maybe MockItNow) is that it does not require neither classes, nor virtual methods. It does use heavily BOOST.Preprocessor and, at certain degree, boost meta-programming capabilities. Even though it has some historical quirks BMock has two major advantages, in my view, unsurpassable yet: a) Ability to dynamically mock ANY function or method. The function definition header needs to be wrapped with a special BMOCK_FUNCTION macro. Opposite to MockItNow this proves a fully portable solution, which does not depend on profiler API or any other low-level compiler capabilities. a) Deep integration with Boost.Test library, most importantly with its diagnostics. So far it proved itself as an extremely useful tool for embedded software development in C/C++. Attached you will find BMock documentation (sorry, not Boost standard :(). Not everything is relevant and not everything should remain, but hopefully you will get an adequate impression about how does it work from the user perspective. As I explained it to Dave during the BoostCon 09 I do not think that BMock in its current state is suitable to be a separate contribution to the Boost library, nor do I think it should be. From the beginning the BMock was conceived as a lightweight (well, as much as possible) extension to Boost.Test. If you find it interesting I will be happy to send you all sources (not too much) and to discuss how to proceed further. Regards, Asher Sterkin Asher [cid:image001.png@01CA84E9.267C30C0] <http://twitter.com/asterkin> [cid:image002.png@01CA84E9.267C30C0] <http://www.twitpic.com/photos/asterkin> [cid:image003.png@01CA84E9.267C30C0] <http://disturbingthoughts-asher.blogspot.com/> [cid:image004.gif@01CA84E9.267C30C0] <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/asher-sterkin/3/106/10a> ________________________________ This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the postmaster@nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. An NDS Group Limited company. www.nds.com Gennady, Recently I’ve came across discussion about extending the Boost.Test framework with a mocking capabilities: [1]http://old.nabble.com/Interest-check:-Boost.Mock-td23958875.html I’ve even found a new header file mock_object.hpp within the 1_41 distribution, but not any documentation yet. There was a question about BMock library I developed and presented about at BoostCon09. The main differentiator of BMock from the rest of C++ frameworks I’m familiar with (except maybe MockItNow) is that it does not require neither classes, nor virtual methods. It does use heavily BOOST.Preprocessor and, at certain degree, boost meta-programming capabilities. Even though it has some historical quirks BMock has two major advantages, in my view, unsurpassable yet: a) Ability to dynamically mock ANY function or method. The function definition header needs to be wrapped with a special BMOCK_FUNCTION macro. Opposite to MockItNow this proves a fully portable solution, which does not depend on profiler API or any other low-level compiler capabilities. a) Deep integration with Boost.Test library, most importantly with its diagnostics. So far it proved itself as an extremely useful tool for embedded software development in C/C++. Attached you will find BMock documentation (sorry, not Boost standard L). Not everything is relevant and not everything should remain, but hopefully you will get an adequate impression about how does it work from the user perspective. As I explained it to Dave during the BoostCon 09 I do not think that BMock in its current state is suitable to be a separate contribution to the Boost library, nor do I think it should be. From the beginning the BMock was conceived as a lightweight (well, as much as possible) extension to Boost.Test. If you find it interesting I will be happy to send you all sources (not too much) and to discuss how to proceed further. Regards, Asher Sterkin Asher [2]twitter [3]twitpic [4]favicon [5]Linkedin _________________________________________________________________ This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the postmaster@nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. An NDS Group Limited company. www.nds.com References 1. http://old.nabble.com/Interest-check:-Boost.Mock-td23958875.html 2. http://twitter.com/asterkin 3. http://www.twitpic.com/photos/asterkin 4. http://disturbingthoughts-asher.blogspot.com/ 5. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/asher-sterkin/3/106/10a
