incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Harry Metske <>
Subject Re: Winstone/CDDL
Date Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:29:31 GMT

with the latest patches to the trunk (see ChangeLog and commits) I got
Selenium working but finally ended up with firefox talking to Jetty telling
me :

/selenium-server/tests/TestSuite.html Not Found

Since this is a version 3 firefox, and wasn't sure if this Selenium works
with firefox 3, I stopped for now (I also could not get ff2 working

According to it should work, I'll do
some more testing on this when I get some more time.


2009/3/26 Andrew Jaquith <>

> That would be great! Please take a look at it, if you wouldn't mind.
> I don't actually know why it doesn't work. Part of the problem is that we
> don't wrap Throwables in WikiExceptions, so there is no way to know why
> WikiEngine won't start unless you bust out the debugger.
> Jetty is tied to Selenium -- we are using the embedded 5.1 classes included
> inside the Selemium server jar. Then I added the "plus" jar and a few
> others.
> Both 2.8.1 and the trunk are affected.
> Any insights you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks.
> Andrew
> On Mar 26, 2009, at 9:18, Siegfried Goeschl <>
> wrote:
>  Hi Andrew,
>> a few notes along the line
>> +) I recently wrote a plain vanilla Jetty integration (see
>> +) based on Fulcrum I'm also able to run Jetty within a JUnit test case
>> (for webservice tests)
>> So I think fixing the TestContainer is possible
>> +) what is the actual problem with Jetty
>> +) is Selenium tied to Jetty 5 in any way
>> +) which JSPWiki version is affected 2.8.1 or trunk?
>> If you don't mind I have a quick look at it ...
>> BTW
>> Andrew Jaquith wrote:
>>> Sorry, I should have been a little more clear. The problem isn't with
>>> Jetty per se. The problem is with TestContainer... the embedded Jetty
>>> launcher class I wrote. It just doesn't work, and I can't figure out
>>> how to fix it. When I first wrote TestContainer, I spent only enough
>>> time writing it to make it work minimally. Then something broke it. I
>>> do not have the time or energy to fix it.
>>> Remember how we got to this point: we use Jetty for the webtests
>>> because parts of Jetty are included in the Selenium-RC jar. There's
>>> enough of Jetty there that it can set up a little server for proxying
>>> requests to Selenium-RC server. At the time, my reasoning was, "well
>>> we've already got part of Jetty already included with Selenium. How
>>> hard could it be to add in a few other JARs and write enough code to
>>> get it to run as an embedded web container? All we we need to do is
>>> write a launcher that configures support for executing JSPs,
>>> authentication, and JNDI objects. How hard could THAT be?"
>>> It turns out, pretty hard. TestContainer has to wire all that "other"
>>> stuff up programmatically -- precisely because we don't want or need
>>> to include the entire Jetty stack in the JSPWiki distro. It wasn't
>>> simple to write because there's very little documentation. Even worse,
>>> we had to use Jetty 5.1 because that's what Selenium uses. But Jetty
>>> is now at version 7, meaning the one we use in our test harness is
>>> damned ancient.
>>> By contrast, Winstone is much, much simpler. It doesn't need any other
>>> jars other than the JSP compiler & runtime, which we already ship. And
>>> it executes from the command line with just a few switches. For our
>>> purposes, it means we don't need to be writing custom code for
>>> embedding Jetty to run web tests. This is a good thing -- it's just
>>> one less peripheral thing that can break, and it mean we don't have to
>>> be chained to an ancient web container for testing.
>>> As for commons-logging, we "shouldn't" need to run it, I agree. At the
>>> moment the only way Winstone will run is if we include it. But perhaps
>>> someone who's more expert at logging can help me with this.
>>> Again -- to be clear. Jetty isn't the problem. It's with our
>>> TestContainer embedded servlet container launcher.
>>> Andrew.
>>> On 3/26/09, Janne Jalkanen <> wrote:
>>>  Yeah, I'm wondering about that too.  If we can't run on Jetty, isn't
>>>> that a really big problem for our general servlet compatibility?
>>>> We should not need commons-logging.jar.  SLF4J should be able to take
>>>> care of it (since it contains commons-logging emulation).
>>>> There are some limitations to including CDDL-licensed works, and
>>>> without looking at Winstone it's hard to say whether they apply or
>>>> not.
>>>> /Janne
>>>> On 26 Mar 2009, at 08:14, Harry Metske wrote:
>>>>  Andrew,
>>>>> just for my understanding, what is wrong with Jetty that makes our
>>>>> webunit
>>>>> tests fail ?
>>>>> (and I agree that CDDL License should be ok, since we have more of
>>>>> them
>>>>> already)
>>>>> Harry
>>>>> 2009/3/26 Andrew Jaquith <>
>>>>>  Janne and all --
>>>>>> The web unit tests are bothering me again. Specifically, the fact
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> we can't run them means we aren't getting good visibility to problems
>>>>>> like the container login issue mentioned on the -user list. So I
>>>>>> to fix them. Again.
>>>>>> I've gotten fed up with the bother of fixing the particular part
>>>>>> our web unit tests that are broken -- the embedded Jetty container
>>>>>> that starts the test webapps. Fortunately I found an alternative
>>>>>> webapp container, Winstone, that does exactly what we need. It's
>>>>>> simple to run (can be done at the command line), and best of all
>>>>>> TINY. Total additional size is 320k, plus the commons-logging-api
>>>>>> (52k), which for some reason it needs. On the other side, I *think*
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> could get rid of the jetty-* jars in test (240k in total), which
>>>>>> means
>>>>>> the net addition is about 80k.
>>>>>> I think this is worth doing. I'd like to back-port this to 2.8 so
>>>>>> can fix the tests there, too. The best part is that this should
>>>>>> actually work, in the sense that it means we don't have to worry
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> maintaining TestContainer, which was only meant to be good enough
>>>>>> barely function. And at the moment it doesn't.
>>>>>> The only question is, is the CDDL ok? It looks like it probably is,
>>>>>> since we have a license notice for it in docs already.
>>>>>> Andrew

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