You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> on 2015/10/03 22:58:40 UTC
Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter
Hello mates,
I send this email to start a discussion for a change on TomEE Arquillian
Adapter.
The other day, because of the book (Arquillian In Action), I checked the
protocol used by different adapters. I noticed that only Weld adapter and
TomEE embedded adapter are using the local protocol,all other ones are
using the Servlet 3.0 protocol. And maybe you are asking why this is
important? Well the problem is that a lot of extensions requires this
protocol to work, for example Arquillian Persistence extension or Arquillan
Warp extension. In case a user wants to use embedded TomEE and one
extension that requires servlet protocol, it would get a cryptic exception.
Of course there is a workaround and it is overriding the default protocol
by using protocol special tag in arquillian.xml and adding the
servlet-protocol dependency.
I think that it would be easier for everyone if all adapters works in the
same way. With the release of TomEE 7 I think it could be a good
opportunity to make this change in the Arquillian embedded adapter as well
and align with the rest of the containers.
The change to be done is very simple in terms of code (Adding one
dependency and change one String of the adapter).
What do you think? From the point of view of Arquillian community it would
be the logic step.
Alex.
Re: Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le 5 oct. 2015 09:26, "Alex Soto" <as...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> If there are bugs/improvements let s do it. I am thinking in terms of
doing
> the life of developers easier and in fact changing the protocol to servlet
> dos not introduce (a priori) any back incompatibility but a lot of
> extensions are going to work with embedded mode.
>
Hate this moment cause it does for sure but cant remember why exactly. Also
lot of extension you think about need a classloader breakdown embedded mode
doesnt offer by design. That said changing it is 1 line in arq.xml so not a
big deal in practise.
> Alex.
>
> El dg, 4 oct 2015 a les 7:53 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> va
> escriure:
>
> > Hi Alex
> >
> > Local protocol allows nicer start so very tempted to keep it like that.
> > Servlet protocol has few bugs/issues and is not what you target by
default
> > with embedded adapters IMO.
> > Le 4 oct. 2015 01:25, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> >
> > > Hey Alex,
> > >
> > > To be honest, I find the protocol section of arquillian the most
> > confusing
> > > for new users to pick up. Why should they care what the protocol
> > > transferring the test data is using? I remember at the beginning, AS7
> > had
> > > a JMX protocol. This made tons of sense, since it didn't impact the
> > > running application. No one understood why their tests stopped work
> > > though! Truth be told, the fact that most people end up relying on
> > > servlet, without even realizing that its the arquillian runtime
starting
> > an
> > > HTTP request makes it confusing to understand scope. Basically, users
> > end
> > > up relying on the servlet protocol to start their HTTP request for
them,
> > > instead of starting an HTTP request for their test invocation.
> > >
> > > Just curious, is this out on discourse somewhere? I can continue my
whine
> > > fest there :-)
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello mates,
> > > >
> > > > I send this email to start a discussion for a change on TomEE
> > Arquillian
> > > > Adapter.
> > > >
> > > > The other day, because of the book (Arquillian In Action), I checked
> > the
> > > > protocol used by different adapters. I noticed that only Weld
adapter
> > and
> > > > TomEE embedded adapter are using the local protocol,all other ones
are
> > > > using the Servlet 3.0 protocol. And maybe you are asking why this is
> > > > important? Well the problem is that a lot of extensions requires
this
> > > > protocol to work, for example Arquillian Persistence extension or
> > > Arquillan
> > > > Warp extension. In case a user wants to use embedded TomEE and one
> > > > extension that requires servlet protocol, it would get a cryptic
> > > exception.
> > > > Of course there is a workaround and it is overriding the default
> > protocol
> > > > by using protocol special tag in arquillian.xml and adding the
> > > > servlet-protocol dependency.
> > > >
> > > > I think that it would be easier for everyone if all adapters works
in
> > the
> > > > same way. With the release of TomEE 7 I think it could be a good
> > > > opportunity to make this change in the Arquillian embedded adapter
as
> > > well
> > > > and align with the rest of the containers.
> > > >
> > > > The change to be done is very simple in terms of code (Adding one
> > > > dependency and change one String of the adapter).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think? From the point of view of Arquillian community it
> > > would
> > > > be the logic step.
> > > >
> > > > Alex.
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Perf are not the same for sure but the advantage is to not go through HTTP
layer:
- control of threads
- control of state "as usual"
etc...
local is the more enhanced version of the embedded behavior arquillian
promotes. Servlet reaches 80% only of it with arq 1.x - which is already
insane but sometimes tests are easier to write without these contraints.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com>
2015-10-05 5:13 GMT-07:00 Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com>:
> But what is the advantage of using local instead of http? I am sure that
> the performance is going to be pretty similar.
>
> El dl., 5 oct. 2015 a les 14:01, Romain Manni-Bucau (<
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>)
> va escriure:
>
> > You can see it the opposite as well ie you go through http where you can
> > not desire it.
> >
> > 50-50 case i think.
> > Le 5 oct. 2015 13:52, "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > > The fundamental problem (if I had to guess) is that let's say I'm
> > testing a
> > > REST API (heck even using the REST extension), persistence extension
> > > doesn't know that my request went through since I'm controlling it, so
> > its
> > > call backs won't take effect. By running embedded, you're more likely
> to
> > > not be inside the same transaction, which is one of the things being
> > banked
> > > on I'm sure.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:26 AM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If there are bugs/improvements let s do it. I am thinking in terms of
> > > doing
> > > > the life of developers easier and in fact changing the protocol to
> > > servlet
> > > > dos not introduce (a priori) any back incompatibility but a lot of
> > > > extensions are going to work with embedded mode.
> > > >
> > > > Alex.
> > > >
> > > > El dg, 4 oct 2015 a les 7:53 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >
> > > va
> > > > escriure:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > Local protocol allows nicer start so very tempted to keep it like
> > that.
> > > > > Servlet protocol has few bugs/issues and is not what you target by
> > > > default
> > > > > with embedded adapters IMO.
> > > > > Le 4 oct. 2015 01:25, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
> > écrit
> > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Alex,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To be honest, I find the protocol section of arquillian the most
> > > > > confusing
> > > > > > for new users to pick up. Why should they care what the protocol
> > > > > > transferring the test data is using? I remember at the
> beginning,
> > > AS7
> > > > > had
> > > > > > a JMX protocol. This made tons of sense, since it didn't impact
> > the
> > > > > > running application. No one understood why their tests stopped
> > work
> > > > > > though! Truth be told, the fact that most people end up relying
> on
> > > > > > servlet, without even realizing that its the arquillian runtime
> > > > starting
> > > > > an
> > > > > > HTTP request makes it confusing to understand scope. Basically,
> > > users
> > > > > end
> > > > > > up relying on the servlet protocol to start their HTTP request
> for
> > > > them,
> > > > > > instead of starting an HTTP request for their test invocation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just curious, is this out on discourse somewhere? I can continue
> my
> > > > whine
> > > > > > fest there :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello mates,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I send this email to start a discussion for a change on TomEE
> > > > > Arquillian
> > > > > > > Adapter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The other day, because of the book (Arquillian In Action), I
> > > checked
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > protocol used by different adapters. I noticed that only Weld
> > > adapter
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > TomEE embedded adapter are using the local protocol,all other
> > ones
> > > > are
> > > > > > > using the Servlet 3.0 protocol. And maybe you are asking why
> this
> > > is
> > > > > > > important? Well the problem is that a lot of extensions
> requires
> > > this
> > > > > > > protocol to work, for example Arquillian Persistence extension
> or
> > > > > > Arquillan
> > > > > > > Warp extension. In case a user wants to use embedded TomEE and
> > one
> > > > > > > extension that requires servlet protocol, it would get a
> cryptic
> > > > > > exception.
> > > > > > > Of course there is a workaround and it is overriding the
> default
> > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > by using protocol special tag in arquillian.xml and adding the
> > > > > > > servlet-protocol dependency.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that it would be easier for everyone if all adapters
> > works
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same way. With the release of TomEE 7 I think it could be a
> good
> > > > > > > opportunity to make this change in the Arquillian embedded
> > adapter
> > > as
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > and align with the rest of the containers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The change to be done is very simple in terms of code (Adding
> one
> > > > > > > dependency and change one String of the adapter).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think? From the point of view of Arquillian
> community
> > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be the logic step.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alex.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter
Posted by Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com>.
But what is the advantage of using local instead of http? I am sure that
the performance is going to be pretty similar.
El dl., 5 oct. 2015 a les 14:01, Romain Manni-Bucau (<rm...@gmail.com>)
va escriure:
> You can see it the opposite as well ie you go through http where you can
> not desire it.
>
> 50-50 case i think.
> Le 5 oct. 2015 13:52, "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > The fundamental problem (if I had to guess) is that let's say I'm
> testing a
> > REST API (heck even using the REST extension), persistence extension
> > doesn't know that my request went through since I'm controlling it, so
> its
> > call backs won't take effect. By running embedded, you're more likely to
> > not be inside the same transaction, which is one of the things being
> banked
> > on I'm sure.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:26 AM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If there are bugs/improvements let s do it. I am thinking in terms of
> > doing
> > > the life of developers easier and in fact changing the protocol to
> > servlet
> > > dos not introduce (a priori) any back incompatibility but a lot of
> > > extensions are going to work with embedded mode.
> > >
> > > Alex.
> > >
> > > El dg, 4 oct 2015 a les 7:53 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> > va
> > > escriure:
> > >
> > > > Hi Alex
> > > >
> > > > Local protocol allows nicer start so very tempted to keep it like
> that.
> > > > Servlet protocol has few bugs/issues and is not what you target by
> > > default
> > > > with embedded adapters IMO.
> > > > Le 4 oct. 2015 01:25, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
> écrit
> > :
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > To be honest, I find the protocol section of arquillian the most
> > > > confusing
> > > > > for new users to pick up. Why should they care what the protocol
> > > > > transferring the test data is using? I remember at the beginning,
> > AS7
> > > > had
> > > > > a JMX protocol. This made tons of sense, since it didn't impact
> the
> > > > > running application. No one understood why their tests stopped
> work
> > > > > though! Truth be told, the fact that most people end up relying on
> > > > > servlet, without even realizing that its the arquillian runtime
> > > starting
> > > > an
> > > > > HTTP request makes it confusing to understand scope. Basically,
> > users
> > > > end
> > > > > up relying on the servlet protocol to start their HTTP request for
> > > them,
> > > > > instead of starting an HTTP request for their test invocation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just curious, is this out on discourse somewhere? I can continue my
> > > whine
> > > > > fest there :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello mates,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I send this email to start a discussion for a change on TomEE
> > > > Arquillian
> > > > > > Adapter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The other day, because of the book (Arquillian In Action), I
> > checked
> > > > the
> > > > > > protocol used by different adapters. I noticed that only Weld
> > adapter
> > > > and
> > > > > > TomEE embedded adapter are using the local protocol,all other
> ones
> > > are
> > > > > > using the Servlet 3.0 protocol. And maybe you are asking why this
> > is
> > > > > > important? Well the problem is that a lot of extensions requires
> > this
> > > > > > protocol to work, for example Arquillian Persistence extension or
> > > > > Arquillan
> > > > > > Warp extension. In case a user wants to use embedded TomEE and
> one
> > > > > > extension that requires servlet protocol, it would get a cryptic
> > > > > exception.
> > > > > > Of course there is a workaround and it is overriding the default
> > > > protocol
> > > > > > by using protocol special tag in arquillian.xml and adding the
> > > > > > servlet-protocol dependency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that it would be easier for everyone if all adapters
> works
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > same way. With the release of TomEE 7 I think it could be a good
> > > > > > opportunity to make this change in the Arquillian embedded
> adapter
> > as
> > > > > well
> > > > > > and align with the rest of the containers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The change to be done is very simple in terms of code (Adding one
> > > > > > dependency and change one String of the adapter).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think? From the point of view of Arquillian community
> > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be the logic step.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alex.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
You can see it the opposite as well ie you go through http where you can
not desire it.
50-50 case i think.
Le 5 oct. 2015 13:52, "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> The fundamental problem (if I had to guess) is that let's say I'm testing a
> REST API (heck even using the REST extension), persistence extension
> doesn't know that my request went through since I'm controlling it, so its
> call backs won't take effect. By running embedded, you're more likely to
> not be inside the same transaction, which is one of the things being banked
> on I'm sure.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:26 AM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If there are bugs/improvements let s do it. I am thinking in terms of
> doing
> > the life of developers easier and in fact changing the protocol to
> servlet
> > dos not introduce (a priori) any back incompatibility but a lot of
> > extensions are going to work with embedded mode.
> >
> > Alex.
> >
> > El dg, 4 oct 2015 a les 7:53 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> va
> > escriure:
> >
> > > Hi Alex
> > >
> > > Local protocol allows nicer start so very tempted to keep it like that.
> > > Servlet protocol has few bugs/issues and is not what you target by
> > default
> > > with embedded adapters IMO.
> > > Le 4 oct. 2015 01:25, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit
> :
> > >
> > > > Hey Alex,
> > > >
> > > > To be honest, I find the protocol section of arquillian the most
> > > confusing
> > > > for new users to pick up. Why should they care what the protocol
> > > > transferring the test data is using? I remember at the beginning,
> AS7
> > > had
> > > > a JMX protocol. This made tons of sense, since it didn't impact the
> > > > running application. No one understood why their tests stopped work
> > > > though! Truth be told, the fact that most people end up relying on
> > > > servlet, without even realizing that its the arquillian runtime
> > starting
> > > an
> > > > HTTP request makes it confusing to understand scope. Basically,
> users
> > > end
> > > > up relying on the servlet protocol to start their HTTP request for
> > them,
> > > > instead of starting an HTTP request for their test invocation.
> > > >
> > > > Just curious, is this out on discourse somewhere? I can continue my
> > whine
> > > > fest there :-)
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello mates,
> > > > >
> > > > > I send this email to start a discussion for a change on TomEE
> > > Arquillian
> > > > > Adapter.
> > > > >
> > > > > The other day, because of the book (Arquillian In Action), I
> checked
> > > the
> > > > > protocol used by different adapters. I noticed that only Weld
> adapter
> > > and
> > > > > TomEE embedded adapter are using the local protocol,all other ones
> > are
> > > > > using the Servlet 3.0 protocol. And maybe you are asking why this
> is
> > > > > important? Well the problem is that a lot of extensions requires
> this
> > > > > protocol to work, for example Arquillian Persistence extension or
> > > > Arquillan
> > > > > Warp extension. In case a user wants to use embedded TomEE and one
> > > > > extension that requires servlet protocol, it would get a cryptic
> > > > exception.
> > > > > Of course there is a workaround and it is overriding the default
> > > protocol
> > > > > by using protocol special tag in arquillian.xml and adding the
> > > > > servlet-protocol dependency.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that it would be easier for everyone if all adapters works
> in
> > > the
> > > > > same way. With the release of TomEE 7 I think it could be a good
> > > > > opportunity to make this change in the Arquillian embedded adapter
> as
> > > > well
> > > > > and align with the rest of the containers.
> > > > >
> > > > > The change to be done is very simple in terms of code (Adding one
> > > > > dependency and change one String of the adapter).
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think? From the point of view of Arquillian community
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > be the logic step.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
The fundamental problem (if I had to guess) is that let's say I'm testing a
REST API (heck even using the REST extension), persistence extension
doesn't know that my request went through since I'm controlling it, so its
call backs won't take effect. By running embedded, you're more likely to
not be inside the same transaction, which is one of the things being banked
on I'm sure.
John
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:26 AM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If there are bugs/improvements let s do it. I am thinking in terms of doing
> the life of developers easier and in fact changing the protocol to servlet
> dos not introduce (a priori) any back incompatibility but a lot of
> extensions are going to work with embedded mode.
>
> Alex.
>
> El dg, 4 oct 2015 a les 7:53 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> va
> escriure:
>
> > Hi Alex
> >
> > Local protocol allows nicer start so very tempted to keep it like that.
> > Servlet protocol has few bugs/issues and is not what you target by
> default
> > with embedded adapters IMO.
> > Le 4 oct. 2015 01:25, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> >
> > > Hey Alex,
> > >
> > > To be honest, I find the protocol section of arquillian the most
> > confusing
> > > for new users to pick up. Why should they care what the protocol
> > > transferring the test data is using? I remember at the beginning, AS7
> > had
> > > a JMX protocol. This made tons of sense, since it didn't impact the
> > > running application. No one understood why their tests stopped work
> > > though! Truth be told, the fact that most people end up relying on
> > > servlet, without even realizing that its the arquillian runtime
> starting
> > an
> > > HTTP request makes it confusing to understand scope. Basically, users
> > end
> > > up relying on the servlet protocol to start their HTTP request for
> them,
> > > instead of starting an HTTP request for their test invocation.
> > >
> > > Just curious, is this out on discourse somewhere? I can continue my
> whine
> > > fest there :-)
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello mates,
> > > >
> > > > I send this email to start a discussion for a change on TomEE
> > Arquillian
> > > > Adapter.
> > > >
> > > > The other day, because of the book (Arquillian In Action), I checked
> > the
> > > > protocol used by different adapters. I noticed that only Weld adapter
> > and
> > > > TomEE embedded adapter are using the local protocol,all other ones
> are
> > > > using the Servlet 3.0 protocol. And maybe you are asking why this is
> > > > important? Well the problem is that a lot of extensions requires this
> > > > protocol to work, for example Arquillian Persistence extension or
> > > Arquillan
> > > > Warp extension. In case a user wants to use embedded TomEE and one
> > > > extension that requires servlet protocol, it would get a cryptic
> > > exception.
> > > > Of course there is a workaround and it is overriding the default
> > protocol
> > > > by using protocol special tag in arquillian.xml and adding the
> > > > servlet-protocol dependency.
> > > >
> > > > I think that it would be easier for everyone if all adapters works in
> > the
> > > > same way. With the release of TomEE 7 I think it could be a good
> > > > opportunity to make this change in the Arquillian embedded adapter as
> > > well
> > > > and align with the rest of the containers.
> > > >
> > > > The change to be done is very simple in terms of code (Adding one
> > > > dependency and change one String of the adapter).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think? From the point of view of Arquillian community it
> > > would
> > > > be the logic step.
> > > >
> > > > Alex.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter
Posted by Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com>.
If there are bugs/improvements let s do it. I am thinking in terms of doing
the life of developers easier and in fact changing the protocol to servlet
dos not introduce (a priori) any back incompatibility but a lot of
extensions are going to work with embedded mode.
Alex.
El dg, 4 oct 2015 a les 7:53 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> va
escriure:
> Hi Alex
>
> Local protocol allows nicer start so very tempted to keep it like that.
> Servlet protocol has few bugs/issues and is not what you target by default
> with embedded adapters IMO.
> Le 4 oct. 2015 01:25, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> > Hey Alex,
> >
> > To be honest, I find the protocol section of arquillian the most
> confusing
> > for new users to pick up. Why should they care what the protocol
> > transferring the test data is using? I remember at the beginning, AS7
> had
> > a JMX protocol. This made tons of sense, since it didn't impact the
> > running application. No one understood why their tests stopped work
> > though! Truth be told, the fact that most people end up relying on
> > servlet, without even realizing that its the arquillian runtime starting
> an
> > HTTP request makes it confusing to understand scope. Basically, users
> end
> > up relying on the servlet protocol to start their HTTP request for them,
> > instead of starting an HTTP request for their test invocation.
> >
> > Just curious, is this out on discourse somewhere? I can continue my whine
> > fest there :-)
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello mates,
> > >
> > > I send this email to start a discussion for a change on TomEE
> Arquillian
> > > Adapter.
> > >
> > > The other day, because of the book (Arquillian In Action), I checked
> the
> > > protocol used by different adapters. I noticed that only Weld adapter
> and
> > > TomEE embedded adapter are using the local protocol,all other ones are
> > > using the Servlet 3.0 protocol. And maybe you are asking why this is
> > > important? Well the problem is that a lot of extensions requires this
> > > protocol to work, for example Arquillian Persistence extension or
> > Arquillan
> > > Warp extension. In case a user wants to use embedded TomEE and one
> > > extension that requires servlet protocol, it would get a cryptic
> > exception.
> > > Of course there is a workaround and it is overriding the default
> protocol
> > > by using protocol special tag in arquillian.xml and adding the
> > > servlet-protocol dependency.
> > >
> > > I think that it would be easier for everyone if all adapters works in
> the
> > > same way. With the release of TomEE 7 I think it could be a good
> > > opportunity to make this change in the Arquillian embedded adapter as
> > well
> > > and align with the rest of the containers.
> > >
> > > The change to be done is very simple in terms of code (Adding one
> > > dependency and change one String of the adapter).
> > >
> > > What do you think? From the point of view of Arquillian community it
> > would
> > > be the logic step.
> > >
> > > Alex.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Alex
Local protocol allows nicer start so very tempted to keep it like that.
Servlet protocol has few bugs/issues and is not what you target by default
with embedded adapters IMO.
Le 4 oct. 2015 01:25, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Hey Alex,
>
> To be honest, I find the protocol section of arquillian the most confusing
> for new users to pick up. Why should they care what the protocol
> transferring the test data is using? I remember at the beginning, AS7 had
> a JMX protocol. This made tons of sense, since it didn't impact the
> running application. No one understood why their tests stopped work
> though! Truth be told, the fact that most people end up relying on
> servlet, without even realizing that its the arquillian runtime starting an
> HTTP request makes it confusing to understand scope. Basically, users end
> up relying on the servlet protocol to start their HTTP request for them,
> instead of starting an HTTP request for their test invocation.
>
> Just curious, is this out on discourse somewhere? I can continue my whine
> fest there :-)
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello mates,
> >
> > I send this email to start a discussion for a change on TomEE Arquillian
> > Adapter.
> >
> > The other day, because of the book (Arquillian In Action), I checked the
> > protocol used by different adapters. I noticed that only Weld adapter and
> > TomEE embedded adapter are using the local protocol,all other ones are
> > using the Servlet 3.0 protocol. And maybe you are asking why this is
> > important? Well the problem is that a lot of extensions requires this
> > protocol to work, for example Arquillian Persistence extension or
> Arquillan
> > Warp extension. In case a user wants to use embedded TomEE and one
> > extension that requires servlet protocol, it would get a cryptic
> exception.
> > Of course there is a workaround and it is overriding the default protocol
> > by using protocol special tag in arquillian.xml and adding the
> > servlet-protocol dependency.
> >
> > I think that it would be easier for everyone if all adapters works in the
> > same way. With the release of TomEE 7 I think it could be a good
> > opportunity to make this change in the Arquillian embedded adapter as
> well
> > and align with the rest of the containers.
> >
> > The change to be done is very simple in terms of code (Adding one
> > dependency and change one String of the adapter).
> >
> > What do you think? From the point of view of Arquillian community it
> would
> > be the logic step.
> >
> > Alex.
> >
>
Re: Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Hey Alex,
To be honest, I find the protocol section of arquillian the most confusing
for new users to pick up. Why should they care what the protocol
transferring the test data is using? I remember at the beginning, AS7 had
a JMX protocol. This made tons of sense, since it didn't impact the
running application. No one understood why their tests stopped work
though! Truth be told, the fact that most people end up relying on
servlet, without even realizing that its the arquillian runtime starting an
HTTP request makes it confusing to understand scope. Basically, users end
up relying on the servlet protocol to start their HTTP request for them,
instead of starting an HTTP request for their test invocation.
Just curious, is this out on discourse somewhere? I can continue my whine
fest there :-)
John
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM Alex Soto <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello mates,
>
> I send this email to start a discussion for a change on TomEE Arquillian
> Adapter.
>
> The other day, because of the book (Arquillian In Action), I checked the
> protocol used by different adapters. I noticed that only Weld adapter and
> TomEE embedded adapter are using the local protocol,all other ones are
> using the Servlet 3.0 protocol. And maybe you are asking why this is
> important? Well the problem is that a lot of extensions requires this
> protocol to work, for example Arquillian Persistence extension or Arquillan
> Warp extension. In case a user wants to use embedded TomEE and one
> extension that requires servlet protocol, it would get a cryptic exception.
> Of course there is a workaround and it is overriding the default protocol
> by using protocol special tag in arquillian.xml and adding the
> servlet-protocol dependency.
>
> I think that it would be easier for everyone if all adapters works in the
> same way. With the release of TomEE 7 I think it could be a good
> opportunity to make this change in the Arquillian embedded adapter as well
> and align with the rest of the containers.
>
> The change to be done is very simple in terms of code (Adding one
> dependency and change one String of the adapter).
>
> What do you think? From the point of view of Arquillian community it would
> be the logic step.
>
> Alex.
>