[Mono-dev] Cecil Design Concerns

[sidarok]

Sebastien Pouliot-2 wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 17:23 -0700, sidarok wrote:
>> And one addition, the library is not written in a testability in mind
>> perspective. I'd like to see comments on this.  
> 
> Cecil itself is not easy to test and there are very few unit tests right
> now (contributions are welcomed :-). However it's easy to test at higher
> levels. E.g. I remember JB round-tripping mono assemblies (reading +
> writing) and running mono's unit tests on them.
> 
> Speaking of JB, he is on vacations this week - so it may take a while to
> get your "official" answers. In the mean time you may want to check, or
> subscribe to, the google group's archive [1].
> 
> Sebastien
> 
> [1] http://groups.google.com/group/mono-cecil?hl=en
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
> 
> 

Thank you very much Sebastien. Can you point me to those tests somehow ? I
am ready to contribute in every aspect - I mailed jb and never received a
reply, so your post explains why :) 

I searched the posts but found no luck.  I am trying to write an engine that
will make retrieving plain text code easier on top of CECIL, and since my
reflection provider is CECIL and the library itsself is a reflection,
although I was able to seperate some Concerns I wasn't successful in
Abstracting or Mocking out CECIL because of these concerns. 

Do you, or anybody know any sort of library or function that exists to make
my life easier ? Or do I need to write a translation engine on top of
existing CIL intructions within scopes ?

Thanks a lot. 

Sidar

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Cecil-Design-Concerns-tp19176831p19192797.html
Sent from the Mono - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.