Jonathan Peffer

Sadly this limitation appears to have existed for years. It seems this should be a higher priority as anyone attempting to use TestNG would not use this in a real-world...

> If I understand this correctly, this code only hides the methods? Ideally I think we'd like to split the code into multiple modules, would this allow that? > >...

@jaapcoomans @snuyanzin I feel like both of you are describing things I largely attempted to accomplish in PR https://github.com/datafaker-net/datafaker/pull/221. I was trying to lay down a foundation that would more...

> This is already done in this POC for non-uber Yes, but it does not address some of the API concerns that are resolved in mine. I think having multiple...

Mine addressed the needs outlined in https://github.com/datafaker-net/datafaker/issues/188, resolved a defect in the FakeValuesService, and laid a foundation for splitting out the fakers into modules, while also retaining full backwards compatibility...

@bodiam I understand your position that DataFaker cannot and should not try to cover every use case. In this particular instance though, the goal is to support repeatable data generation,...

> Also, what do you mean with Faker A and Faker B? Are you talking about Faker, or about a data provider like Address or Name? Sorry, I don't have...

@bodiam Yes, my apologies for not getting back to you, I've just been swamped lately. I was planning to provide some examples. I think the primary question is why would...

Correct, the initialization of a Faker with a provided Random is problematic. I think that opens the question though of whether you need to be able to provide a Random....

> you might be interested in having a look at a related PR #214 Saw this today and love it. Thanks for the change.