jakarta-cactus-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vincent Massol" <vmas...@octo.com>
Subject RE: Session object on the client side.
Date Mon, 01 Apr 2002 17:27:02 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arkady_Bari@vertexinc.com [mailto:Arkady_Bari@vertexinc.com]
> Sent: 01 April 2002 18:19
> To: Cactus Users List
> Subject: RE: Session object on the client side.
> 
> 
> I meant the session wrapper on the client that allows to set content
of
> the
> real session on the server.  But I guess I can use the implicit object
> 'session'
> in the setUp method (invoked on the server) to set session content
> specific
> to the test instead. Is this the correct approach ?

yes, it is the correct approach. Example :

public void testXXX()
{
   session.[...]
}

or in setUp() if you want it to be shared by all test cases.

If you need some examples, please have a look at the ones provided with
the cactus distribution, in the sample/ directory.

Thanks
-Vincent

> 
>                                     Thank you
> 
>                                                       Arkady
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                       "Vincent Massol"
>                       <vmassol@octo.com        To:       "'Cactus
Users
> List'" <cactus-user@jakarta.apache.org>
>                       >                        cc:
>                                                Subject:  RE: Session
> object on the client side.
>                       04/01/2002 11:49
>                       AM
>                       Please respond to
>                       "Cactus Users
>                       List"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I don't understand. First Session objects are only available on the
> server side as they are sever objects provided by the container. But
> maybe you mean having a wrapper (like what already exists with
> WebRequest) and then populating the real session object on the server
> side ?
> 
> Fine, but I don't see the point. Session content is always in
isolation
> as each test case has its own session ... In other words, each test
case
> is independent of another (which is the point in unit testing).
> 
> Maybe I misunderstood something ? :-)
> 
> Thanks
> -Vincent
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arkady_Bari@vertexinc.com [mailto:Arkady_Bari@vertexinc.com]
> > Sent: 01 April 2002 17:14
> > To: cactus-user@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: Session object on the client side.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Would it make sense to have the ability to populate session object
on
> the
> > client side. This would allow to test server side components that
rely
> on
> > the
> > session content in isolation ?
> >
> >                                                 Arkady
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:cactus-user-
> > unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:cactus-user-
> > help@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <
> mailto:cactus-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <
> mailto:cactus-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:cactus-user-
> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:cactus-user-
> help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:cactus-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:cactus-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message