harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <devli...@hanik.com>
Subject Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 05:21:21 GMT
as a lurker, any reason for not choosing Tomcat, as it already is an ASF 
project?
I'd be happy to help out with that effort,

Filip

Andrew Zhang wrote:
> Alexei, sorry for my late reply.
>
> It seems a big problem to me. :) I haven't find any solution yet.
> Futhurmore, ftp server also needs to be substituted. Do you have any
> suggestions?
>
> Anyway, let's start from http server -- jetty. :) Any committers would 
> like
> to integrate jetty to Harmony? Thanks!
>
>
>
> On 8/1/06, Alexei Zakharov <alexei.zakharov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> > I volunteer to work on excluded tests in luni module, most of which 
>> are
>> > dependent on external servers(http server, socks proxy and etc.).
>>
>> Great news - go ahead! :)
>> What are you going to use as a substitute for the remote socks proxy?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 2006/8/1, Andrew Zhang <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com>:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > I volunteer to work on excluded tests in luni module, most of which 
>> are
>> > dependent on external servers(http server, socks proxy and etc.).
>> >
>> > As we discussed some months earlier, we'd integrate Jetty to Harmony
>> test
>> > framework for eliminating external http server, but seems no more
>> progress.
>> >
>> > Any volunteer to do this job? :-)
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/23/06, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi George, Paulex,
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for your answers. As a preliminary result - your convinced me
>> and
>> > > I'm
>> > > going to be volunteer to evaluate jetty integration to classlib test
>> > > suite.
>> > >
>> > > Do anybody work on integrating jetty http server to move net 
>> tests out
>> of
>> > > exclude list?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Stepan.
>> > >
>> > > On 5/23/06, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> > > > > Hi George, Tim
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
>> > > > > 1) Configuring
>> > > > > As I understood we say that the server is 'embedded' when we
can
>> > > > > start/stop
>> > > > > it within Ant without additional configuration steps. And all
we
>> need
>> > > > > to do
>> > > > > is just download required jars. Right?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What about Eclipse users?
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Stepan,
>> > > >
>> > > > In addition to be being start-able, stop-able and configurable 
>> from
>> Ant
>> > > > and XML config files, Jetty can also be embedded into the Java 
>> code
>> of a
>> > > > test case or test suite. Configuration, starting and stopping are
>> all
>> > > > possible. Eclipse users should not be disadvantaged.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2) Time to run test suite
>> > > > > May be it is hard to estimate but anyway - will the test 
>> suite run
>> > > > > slow down
>> > > > > if we'll use jetty instead of mock objects? How much?
>> > > >
>> > > > Depends on configuration. Configure and start the server in the
>> setup()
>> > > > of a JUnit TesCase (and stopping the server in the teardown()) 
>> would
>> > > > obviously be slower than doing the equivalent in a JUnit TestSetup
>> > > > descendent. Start up is a lot less than half a second on my 
>> machine.
>> > > >
>> > > > Is there some performance benchmark for tests that is at risk 
>> here ?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 3) Testing
>> > > > > Quoting Tim from 'local server thread': "There is no way to 
>> force
>> a
>> > > > > server
>> > > > > to send you a chunked response using regular HTTP headers, so
in
>> this
>> > > > > case
>> > > > > the server and client have an understanding that when the client
>> asks
>> > > > > for a
>> > > > > particular resource the server will send it back in chunks."
>> > > > >
>> > > > > With mock objects this can be done with no problems and
>> HARMONY-164
>> > > > > demonstrates the possible way. Also are we going to create
>> negative
>> > > > > tests,
>> > > > > for example, for broken server response? I think yes. Can jetty
>> server
>> > > > be
>> > > > > used for negative testing?
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes. You can send back any error.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > See other comments below
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 5/22/06, George Harley wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> > > > >> > On 5/19/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> > > > >> >> <snip>
>> > > > >> >> > I'm OK only if we separate tests with Jetty
from common 
>> test
>> > > suite
>> > > > >> >> run.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Why?
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Because each external dependency complicates 'normal'
test
>> suite
>> > > > >> run ( I
>> > > > >> > don't want to face with situation when to run Harmony
test
>> suite I
>> > > > >> > have to
>> > > > >> > configure and run 20 different external servers even
they are
>> easy
>> > > > >> > configurable). As far as I remember we agreed to use
mock
>> objects -
>> > > > so
>> > > > >> > let's
>> > > > >> > use them! For example, in this case there is no need
in jetty
>> > > server.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > I'm not against 'jetty based tests' but I'd prefer to

>> separate
>> such
>> > > > >> > tests.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Thanks,
>> > > > >> > Stepan.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Hi Stepan,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Just seen this note and think that my previous append on
the 
>> "Re:
>> svn
>> > > > >> commit: r407752" thread sums up my thoughts. Allow me to
quote
>> > > myself:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> <paste>
>> > > > >> Jetty or equivalent is a good basis for such local server

>> stubs.
>> It
>> > > is
>> > > > >> fast, it is lightweight,
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Fast and lightweight as what?
>> > > > > I saw sometimes ago java server that has jar size 4k. And
>> > > > > jetty-6.0.0beta6.jar is 423k size.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Not sure of your point here. Is there some test file footprint
>> benchmark
>> > > > that is at risk here ? If there is a better, faster, more
>> lightweight
>> > > > server that would suit our purposes then let's hear about it so 
>> that
>> we
>> > > > can investigate whether or not it may be used with our network
>> tests.
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> it can be started and stopped very simply from
>> > > > >> within Ant (so that it only runs for the duration of a 
>> specified
>> > > batch
>> > > > >> of unit tests) and may also be completely controlled from
Java
>> test
>> > > > code
>> > > > >> so that we can configure its behaviour for any test case
from
>> within
>> > > > >> that test case.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Good.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It's architecture means that we do not have to run it as
>> > > > >> a complete web server but can stub out any aspect of its

>> runtime
>> > > > >> behaviour we wish in order to suit the purposes of the test(s).
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What about 'chunked response'? Can a testcase force jetty server
>> to
>> > > > > send it
>> > > > > a chunked response?
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes. The API provides options to do this. Chunks are encoded as 
>> per
>> > > > RFC2616.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > George
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't really understand why such network tests making use of
a
>> > > small,
>> > > > >> embedded server running locally would need to be considered
as
>> > > outside
>> > > > >> of the "normal test flow".
>> > > > >> </paste>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Because I consider adding jetty server as precedent for adding
>> other
>> > > > > dependencies to the "normal test flow". I believe that "normal
>> test
>> > > > flow"
>> > > > > should be fast and lightweight as much as possible. Each
>> additional
>> > > > > dependency or configuration step adds a brick(even it light)
to
>> > > > > developer's
>> > > > > large. As the result classlib test suite may become very slow

>> and
>> hard
>> > > > to
>> > > > > configure. All I want is to understand - do we really need jetty
>> > > server
>> > > > > inside it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Stepan.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We are not talking about an external server here and we are not
>> > > talking
>> > > > >> about developers having to carry out complex configuration
>> manoeuvres
>> > > > >> when running the tests. That is something that nobody wants.

>> The
>> > > > >> motivation here is purely to get more of the java.net tests
out
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > > >> "excludes" sin bin.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > >> George
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > Regards,
>> > > > >> >> Tim
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> --
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> > > > >> >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >> Terms of use :
>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > > >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Stepan Mishura
>> > > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> > >
>> > > ------------------------------------------------------
>> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: 
>> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andrew Zhang
>> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Alexei Zakharov,
>> Intel Middleware Product Division
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/410 - Release Date: 8/5/2006
>   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message