directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <>
Subject Re: [DNS] Trunk or branch for DNS work?
Date Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:35:39 GMT
The dependency is OK in server-unit but not in protocol-dns.  If you
want to do over the wire tests do it in server-unit.  This is the
point to the module: it's there specifically for over the wire
integration tests.

The DNS service is a part of ApacheDS. It is not a standalone product
in itself. So test the whole stack with the integration tests to make
sure your stuff works. If you want a standalone derivative go check
out Apache Labs or try the Incubator.

If you have convenience interfaces for alternative backing stores
that's fine but we're not going to reorganize things to accommodate
that.  Our aim is to progress ApacheDS and not act as an incubator for
plugins that want to become top level projects.

Also note that the issues with the time taken to run integration tests
is temporary.  This will go away.  So any *integration* tests you add,
you should add them specifically to work in the proper environment,
that is inside ApacheDS with the LDAP store.  Anything else is not
something we intend to keep in the main line of development.


On Nov 11, 2007 5:05 PM, Enrique Rodriguez <> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2007 8:51 PM, Alex Karasulu <> wrote:
> > ...
> > I agree but dnsjava is a client library.  Are you using it to go
> > through the wire via
> > the protocol?
> 'dnsjava' has some functions that would be useful for doing PDU-level
> comparisions, to test our codecs in isolation.  It also has some
> routines for working with domain names.  However, I *would* like to
> also use it to test the DnsServer over-the-wire with a stub backend.
> The unit testing cycle and overall development is much faster without
> involving the backend.  Ideally we would package the same tests with
> 'dnsjava' that both run against a stub store as well as the full
> ApacheDS in 'server-unit', using some technique like the Maven 2
> "tests" classifier that David Jencks detailed a bit ago.
> I would also like to point out that in DIRSERVER-1091 the backend is
> custom ("MyRecordStore"), so I think it makes sense to provide these
> tests such that they don't require the full DIT.  As we can see from
> DIRSERVER-1091, DIRSERVER-1092, and DIRSERVER-1093, there is a benefit
> to making the protocol providers function without requiring the DIT
> backend since it opens our user base to a wider community.
> Enrique

View raw message