jakarta-cactus-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vincent Massol" <vmas...@pivolis.com>
Subject RE: Server Side Testing ejb implementation code
Date Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:14:25 GMT
Hi Julien,

Yes, ATM, there is a limitation in Cactus when it comes to testing EJBs.
As we don't have an EJB redirector yet, we have to go through the
remote/local interface. This is only the case for EJB. For all other
types of J2EE components it works fine.

Security roles should not be an issue. You have to decide what kind of
test you want (functional or unit test). If you want to perform unit
testing, then you want to test the fine-grained details of the code
implementation. Simply do not use security in your deployment
descriptors for cactus tests for example. Or create a valid EJB security
context before calling the EJB to test.

WRT form-based authentication, it is already implemented.

Your "idea" of the "root" Session Bean is exactly what is planned! :-)
See the todo page on the Cactus web site.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julien Dubois [mailto:julien@julien-dubois.com]
> Sent: 24 June 2003 23:09
> To: Cactus Users List
> Subject: Re: Server Side Testing ejb implementation code
> Hi Martin, hi everybody,
> I'm a Cactus newbee too, and I'm having kind of the same problems. I'd
> like to
> tests my EJBs.
> Like Martin, I can only tests EJBs which are visible to the servlet
> container,
> and my Entity Beans are definitly not visible. This is not a major
> problem,
> my logic is in the Session Beans and they're the ones I'd like to
> However, they're protected by a lot of different security roles, and I
> find it
> very difficult to test them from Cactus. Implementing form-based
> authentication in Cactus would help (I see that is being worked on in
> tree), however it would not solve all my problems.
> So I'm toying with one idea :
> Why not make a Session Bean, which would run as "root" (a unix-like
> role should exist), and which would inherit from
> It's just an idea, has anybody done something like that before??
> Julien Dubois.
> On Tuesday 24 June 2003 19:56, Bayly, Martin wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > We're looking into using Cactus to improve integration unit testing.
> We're
> > planning on using Cactus primarily for testing our ejb interfaces,
> > ideally we'd like to use it for server side testing of lower level
> classes
> > in the ejb implementations e.g. data access classes for example.
> >
> > This raises the issue of visibility of those classes to the web tier
> where
> > the cactus unit tests run. Currently, our deployed build is pretty
> > and everything can see pretty much everything else.  However, we're
> the
> > process of tightening this up with the intention being that the web
> > will only be able to see the ejb interfaces and the classes exposed
> > those interfaces.  However, it won't 'conceptually' be able to see
> > implementation details.
> >
> > To a certain extent this depends on the class loading scheme used by
> > container - we're currently using weblogic 6 and in the current
> > class loading scheme the web app can see all the classes in the ejb,
> all
> > ejbs are loaded using a single class loader, and the web app is
> as a
> > child class loader of the ejb class loader.
> >
> > However, we don't particularly want to be tied to the current
> > scheme.
> >
> > I was just wondering if other people have come across this issue and
> > have they tackled it.  Does it mean we're going to have to deploy
with a
> > different structure for running server unit tests?  I was kind of
> > the only difference in our test/production build would be the
> test
> > cases and cactus jars.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message