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 14:31:42 GMT
yes, jetty has kept that as a goal, while Tomcat has built out and 
expanded its options and configurations.
jetty also doesn't implement any JSP logic, only http and servlet. 
creating a custom light-weight tomcat, may be more work than needed, I 
can look into that.
I'd be happy to look into providing a patch for jetty,
there is also - http://asyncweb.safehaus.org/ which builds on the 
apachemina project.

I agree, the goal should be easy and quick integration, you'll hear from 
me in a couple of days.

Filip


Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Does somebody have numbers why Jetty is so light-weighted comparing to
> Tomcat? I believe Tomcat can also be executed directly from Java code.
> And a lot of stuff can also be removed from Tomcat - connectors,
> examples and so on. Am I wrong?
>
> Regards,
>
> 2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com>:
>> Hi Filip,
>>
>> We want to use jetty to eliminate any external dependency, which 
>> means we do
>> not need to start an external web server when we run Harmony test. 
>> Jetty is
>> suitable for this job, while tomcat may not work. Furthermore, jetty is
>> lightweight, and can be easily integrated to Harmony from source code 
>> level,
>> say, drop a jetty.jar or such in Harmony, and we can write jetty 
>> based http
>> tests. Sounds reasonable?
>>
>> On 8/8/06, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <devlists@hanik.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Andrew Zhang
>> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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