harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew Zhang" <zhanghuang...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 07:05:43 GMT
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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message