You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> on 2006/08/01 05:39:00 UTC
[test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
On 9/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:13 AM, Richard Liang wrote:
>
> > On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrew Zhang wrote:
> >> > On 9/18/06, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder?
> >>
> >> Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars.
> >>
> >
> > Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar
> > into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty.
> > Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the
> > .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar"?
>
> I dunno, but I don't think that would be a reason to stuff jetty.jar
> in svn.
>
I agree that we should not put jetty into Harony svn.
> geir
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Development Lab, IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:13 AM, Richard Liang wrote:
> On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Andrew Zhang wrote:
>> > On 9/18/06, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder?
>>
>> Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars.
>>
>
> Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar
> into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty.
> Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the
> .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar"?
I dunno, but I don't think that would be a reason to stuff jetty.jar
in svn.
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
On 9/20/06, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/19/06, Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/19/06, Richard Liang wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > > > > On 9/18/06, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take
> the
> > > job
> > > > >> if
> > > > >> > no one objects. Here are my suggestions:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Great :-)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6.
> Because
> > > many
> > > > >> > 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest
> jetty
> > > > >> > version.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> +1
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > 2. location to put jetty jars: support module.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder?
> > > >
> > > > Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar
> > > into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty.
> > > Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the
> > > .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar"?
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd use it as 'support.jar' - so it is downloaded to 'depends', copied
> by
> > the build to 'deploy/build/test' and added as external jar in Eclipse.
>
> Yes. It's reasonable. Let's have a try ;-) Andrew?
Step 1, Harmony-1501, patch uploaded. :-)
>
> > Thanks,
> > Stepan.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >> 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty
> in
> > > any
> > > > >> test
> > > > >> > if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we
> could
> > > > >> extract
> > > > >> > them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to
> > > write
> > > > >> jetty
> > > > >> > test directly in each module, because the code is rather
> simple,
> > > only a
> > > > >> few
> > > > >> > lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for
> > > > >> > negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better.
> :-)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload
> patches
> > > > >> when
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > reach an agreement.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > >> > Andrew
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [1]
> > > > >> > jetty-based test example:
> > > > >> > setUp code:
> > > > >> > port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort();
> > > > >> > Server server = new Server(port);
> > > > >> > ResourceHandler resource_handler=new
> ResourceHandler();
> > > > >> > resource_handler.setResourceBase("somewhere");
> > > > >> > server.setHandler(resource_handler);
> > > > >> > server.start();
> > > > >> > tearDown code:
> > > > >> > server.stop();
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Richard Liang
> > > > >> China Development Lab, IBM
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liang
> China Development Lab, IBM
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
On 9/19/06, Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/06, Richard Liang wrote:
> >
> > On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > > > On 9/18/06, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Hi,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the
> > job
> > > >> if
> > > >> > no one objects. Here are my suggestions:
> > > >>
> > > >> Great :-)
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because
> > many
> > > >> > 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty
> > > >> > version.
> > > >>
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 2. location to put jetty jars: support module.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder?
> > >
> > > Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar
> > into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty.
> > Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the
> > .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar"?
>
>
>
> I'd use it as 'support.jar' - so it is downloaded to 'depends', copied by
> the build to 'deploy/build/test' and added as external jar in Eclipse.
Yes. It's reasonable. Let's have a try ;-) Andrew?
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> > >
> > > >> 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in
> > any
> > > >> test
> > > >> > if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could
> > > >> extract
> > > >> > them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to
> > write
> > > >> jetty
> > > >> > test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple,
> > only a
> > > >> few
> > > >> > lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for
> > > >> > negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches
> > > >> when
> > > >> we
> > > >> > reach an agreement.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best regards,
> > > >> > Andrew
> > > >> >
> > > >> > [1]
> > > >> > jetty-based test example:
> > > >> > setUp code:
> > > >> > port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort();
> > > >> > Server server = new Server(port);
> > > >> > ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler();
> > > >> > resource_handler.setResourceBase("somewhere");
> > > >> > server.setHandler(resource_handler);
> > > >> > server.start();
> > > >> > tearDown code:
> > > >> > server.stop();
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Richard Liang
> > > >> China Development Lab, IBM
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Development Lab, IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
Patch uploaded, Harmony-1501. :-)
On 9/19/06, Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/19/06, Richard Liang wrote:
> >
> > On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > > > On 9/18/06, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Hi,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take
> the
> > job
> > > >> if
> > > >> > no one objects. Here are my suggestions:
> > > >>
> > > >> Great :-)
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because
> > many
> > > >> > 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest
> jetty
> > > >> > version.
> > > >>
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 2. location to put jetty jars: support module.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder?
> > >
> > > Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar
> > into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty.
> > Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the
> > .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar"?
>
>
>
> I'd use it as 'support.jar' - so it is downloaded to 'depends', copied by
> the build to 'deploy/build/test' and added as external jar in Eclipse.
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> > >
> > > >> 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in
> > any
> > > >> test
> > > >> > if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we
> could
> > > >> extract
> > > >> > them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to
> > write
> > > >> jetty
> > > >> > test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple,
> > only a
> > > >> few
> > > >> > lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for
> > > >> > negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload
> patches
> > > >> when
> > > >> we
> > > >> > reach an agreement.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best regards,
> > > >> > Andrew
> > > >> >
> > > >> > [1]
> > > >> > jetty-based test example:
> > > >> > setUp code:
> > > >> > port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort();
> > > >> > Server server = new Server(port);
> > > >> > ResourceHandler resource_handler=new
> ResourceHandler();
> > > >> > resource_handler.setResourceBase("somewhere");
> > > >> > server.setHandler(resource_handler);
> > > >> > server.start();
> > > >> > tearDown code:
> > > >> > server.stop();
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Richard Liang
> > > >> China Development Lab, IBM
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com>.
On 9/19/06, Richard Liang wrote:
>
> On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> >
> > Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > > On 9/18/06, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> > It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the
> job
> > >> if
> > >> > no one objects. Here are my suggestions:
> > >>
> > >> Great :-)
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because
> many
> > >> > 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty
> > >> > version.
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > 2. location to put jetty jars: support module.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder?
> >
> > Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars.
> >
>
> Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar
> into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty.
> Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the
> .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar"?
I'd use it as 'support.jar' - so it is downloaded to 'depends', copied by
the build to 'deploy/build/test' and added as external jar in Eclipse.
Thanks,
Stepan.
> >
> > >> 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in
> any
> > >> test
> > >> > if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could
> > >> extract
> > >> > them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to
> write
> > >> jetty
> > >> > test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple,
> only a
> > >> few
> > >> > lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for
> > >> > negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-)
> > >> >
> > >> > Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches
> > >> when
> > >> we
> > >> > reach an agreement.
> > >> >
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > Andrew
> > >> >
> > >> > [1]
> > >> > jetty-based test example:
> > >> > setUp code:
> > >> > port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort();
> > >> > Server server = new Server(port);
> > >> > ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler();
> > >> > resource_handler.setResourceBase("somewhere");
> > >> > server.setHandler(resource_handler);
> > >> > server.start();
> > >> > tearDown code:
> > >> > server.stop();
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Richard Liang
> > >> China Development Lab, IBM
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > On 9/18/06, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job
> >> if
> >> > no one objects. Here are my suggestions:
> >>
> >> Great :-)
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many
> >> > 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty
> >> > version.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 2. location to put jetty jars: support module.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn?
> >
> >
> > Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder?
>
> Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars.
>
Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar
into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty.
Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the
.classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar"?
> >
> >> 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any
> >> test
> >> > if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could
> >> extract
> >> > them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write
> >> jetty
> >> > test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a
> >> few
> >> > lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for
> >> > negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-)
> >> >
> >> > Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches
> >> when
> >> we
> >> > reach an agreement.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Andrew
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> > jetty-based test example:
> >> > setUp code:
> >> > port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort();
> >> > Server server = new Server(port);
> >> > ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler();
> >> > resource_handler.setResourceBase("somewhere");
> >> > server.setHandler(resource_handler);
> >> > server.start();
> >> > tearDown code:
> >> > server.stop();
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liang
> >> China Development Lab, IBM
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Development Lab, IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty
based tests)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Andrew Zhang wrote:
> On 9/18/06, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job
>> if
>> > no one objects. Here are my suggestions:
>>
>> Great :-)
>>
>> >
>> > 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many
>> > 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty
>> > version.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> >
>> > 2. location to put jetty jars: support module.
>> >
>>
>> Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn?
>
>
> Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder?
Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars.
>
>> 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any
>> test
>> > if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could
>> extract
>> > them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write
>> jetty
>> > test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a
>> few
>> > lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for
>> > negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-)
>> >
>> > Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches
>> when
>> we
>> > reach an agreement.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > jetty-based test example:
>> > setUp code:
>> > port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort();
>> > Server server = new Server(port);
>> > ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler();
>> > resource_handler.setResourceBase("somewhere");
>> > server.setHandler(resource_handler);
>> > server.start();
>> > tearDown code:
>> > server.stop();
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liang
>> China Development Lab, IBM
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
On 9/18/06, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job
> if
> > no one objects. Here are my suggestions:
>
> Great :-)
>
> >
> > 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many
> > 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty
> > version.
>
> +1
>
> >
> > 2. location to put jetty jars: support module.
> >
>
> Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn?
Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder?
> 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any
> test
> > if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could
> extract
> > them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write
> jetty
> > test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a
> few
> > lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for
> > negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-)
> >
> > Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when
> we
> > reach an agreement.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew
> >
> > [1]
> > jetty-based test example:
> > setUp code:
> > port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort();
> > Server server = new Server(port);
> > ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler();
> > resource_handler.setResourceBase("somewhere");
> > server.setHandler(resource_handler);
> > server.start();
> > tearDown code:
> > server.stop();
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liang
> China Development Lab, IBM
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if
> no one objects. Here are my suggestions:
Great :-)
>
> 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many
> 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty
> version.
+1
>
> 2. location to put jetty jars: support module.
>
Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn?
> 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test
> if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract
> them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty
> test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few
> lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for
> negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-)
>
> Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we
> reach an agreement.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> [1]
> jetty-based test example:
> setUp code:
> port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort();
> Server server = new Server(port);
> ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler();
> resource_handler.setResourceBase("somewhere");
> server.setHandler(resource_handler);
> server.start();
> tearDown code:
> server.stop();
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Development Lab, IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if
no one objects. Here are my suggestions:
1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many
5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty
version.
2. location to put jetty jars: support module.
3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test
if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract
them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty
test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few
lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for
negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-)
Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we
reach an agreement.
Best regards,
Andrew
[1]
jetty-based test example:
setUp code:
port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort();
Server server = new Server(port);
ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler();
resource_handler.setResourceBase("somewhere");
server.setHandler(resource_handler);
server.start();
tearDown code:
server.stop();
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
On 8/17/06, Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/17/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I'd like to say something more about jetty integration. We should reach
> an
> > agreement on how to integrate/use jetty in Harmony. There are some
> > concerns
> > I can image now:
> >
> > 1. Where to put jetty? support or luni module or somewhere else? It
> > depends
> > on question 2.
>
>
> +1 for support
>
> 2. How to use jetty? How many jetty instances are there? Singleton or
> > multiple instances? In other word, shall we start only one jetty server
> at
> > the beginning before running all tests? or will we start/destroy
> embedded
> > jetty server at will in any test case? Seems jetty supports both
> options.
>
>
> It should be possibile for a test dynamically configure testing server
> (remember my favorite scenario with sending chunked response?). So a test
> should be able to stat jetty.
Yes, I remember. :) Overriding AbstractHttpHandler should work for your
scenario. That's why I mentioned "setHandler" in the Support_JettyServer
API.
Of course, if we find something that can only be done by multiple jetty
instances, then I would agree that a test should be able to start jetty.
Otherwise, I'll vote for single jetty instance, for performance, and easy
maintenance consideration.
3. How to write jetty based test?. Multi-thread network test always is a
> > problem to us. I found it's also hard to be theoretically.
>
>
> I've expected that you know :-) Are there any guidelines?
Not guidelines but some ideas. :) It's almost impossible to write
theoretically stable jetty test. (correct me if I'm wrong.) Because
server.accept and client.connect/read are both blocking operation so
synchronization(wait/notify/lock) doesn't work here. But it's possible to
write pratically stable tests. If there's only one jetty instance which is
started at the begining, things are simple. Just start jetty, wait a little
while (until we can connect to a sample page or be notified from jetty if
there's any callback method in jetty), and run all tests. No thread race
problem at all if we assume jetty really started and works well after "a
little while", and jetty thread can be scheduled normally by jvm. I think we
have to assume something, and believe the tests are pratically stable,
though not theoretically. Any fears for the potentially uncertain? :) Any
suggestions/comments/objections? Thanks!
Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> According to the description above, I suggest put jetty in support module,
> > and encapsulate a class (i.e Support_JettyServer) with some public
> methods
> > for test writing (i.e getJettyPort(), setHandler(), set...). The
> advantage
> > of this approach hides all jetty details in support. Once jetty support
> > class is ready, all modules can write http tests in the same way.
> >
> > Any suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks!
> >
> > On 8/1/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > jettyserver
> > > > > 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
> > jettyserver.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > 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
> > jettyserver
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com>.
On 8/17/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to say something more about jetty integration. We should reach an
> agreement on how to integrate/use jetty in Harmony. There are some
> concerns
> I can image now:
>
> 1. Where to put jetty? support or luni module or somewhere else? It
> depends
> on question 2.
+1 for support
2. How to use jetty? How many jetty instances are there? Singleton or
> multiple instances? In other word, shall we start only one jetty server at
> the beginning before running all tests? or will we start/destroy embedded
> jetty server at will in any test case? Seems jetty supports both options.
It should be possibile for a test dynamically configure testing server
(remember my favorite scenario with sending chunked response?). So a test
should be able to stat jetty.
3. How to write jetty based test?. Multi-thread network test always is a
> problem to us. I found it's also hard to be theoretically.
I've expected that you know :-) Are there any guidelines?
Thanks,
Stepan.
According to the description above, I suggest put jetty in support module,
> and encapsulate a class (i.e Support_JettyServer) with some public methods
> for test writing (i.e getJettyPort(), setHandler(), set...). The advantage
> of this approach hides all jetty details in support. Once jetty support
> class is ready, all modules can write http tests in the same way.
>
> Any suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks!
>
> On 8/1/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> jettyserver
> > > > 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
> jettyserver.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > 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
> jettyserver
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >> >>
>
>
--
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
2006/8/17, Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I'd like to say something more about jetty integration. We should
> > reach an
> > agreement on how to integrate/use jetty in Harmony. There are some
> > concerns
> > I can image now:
> >
> > 1. Where to put jetty? support or luni module or somewhere else? It
> > depends
> > on question 2.
> How about putting jetty into depends?
+1
Thanks,
Mikhail
>
> >
> > 2. How to use jetty? How many jetty instances are there? Singleton or
> > multiple instances? In other word, shall we start only one jetty
> > server at
> > the beginning before running all tests? or will we start/destroy embedded
> > jetty server at will in any test case? Seems jetty supports both options.
> I agree. We still shall be cautious about jetty instances though it's
> light-weighted. IMHO, for most test cases, one global jetty instance is
> enough. But maybe there are some cases which need separate instances.
> Let's see comments from others :-)
>
> >
> > 3. How to write jetty based test?. Multi-thread network test always is a
> > problem to us. I found it's also hard to be theoretically.
> Yes.
> >
> > According to the description above, I suggest put jetty in support
> > module,
> > and encapsulate a class (i.e Support_JettyServer) with some public
> > methods
> > for test writing (i.e getJettyPort(), setHandler(), set...). The
> > advantage
> > of this approach hides all jetty details in support. Once jetty support
> > class is ready, all modules can write http tests in the same way.
> >
> > Any suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks!
> >
> > On 8/1/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> jettyserver
> >> > > 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
> >> jettyserver.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > 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
> >> jettyserver
> >> > > > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liang
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty
based tests)
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
Andrew Zhang wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to say something more about jetty integration. We should
> reach an
> agreement on how to integrate/use jetty in Harmony. There are some
> concerns
> I can image now:
>
> 1. Where to put jetty? support or luni module or somewhere else? It
> depends
> on question 2.
How about putting jetty into depends?
>
> 2. How to use jetty? How many jetty instances are there? Singleton or
> multiple instances? In other word, shall we start only one jetty
> server at
> the beginning before running all tests? or will we start/destroy embedded
> jetty server at will in any test case? Seems jetty supports both options.
I agree. We still shall be cautious about jetty instances though it's
light-weighted. IMHO, for most test cases, one global jetty instance is
enough. But maybe there are some cases which need separate instances.
Let's see comments from others :-)
>
> 3. How to write jetty based test?. Multi-thread network test always is a
> problem to us. I found it's also hard to be theoretically.
Yes.
>
> According to the description above, I suggest put jetty in support
> module,
> and encapsulate a class (i.e Support_JettyServer) with some public
> methods
> for test writing (i.e getJettyPort(), setHandler(), set...). The
> advantage
> of this approach hides all jetty details in support. Once jetty support
> class is ready, all modules can write http tests in the same way.
>
> Any suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks!
>
> On 8/1/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> jettyserver
>> > > 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
>> jettyserver.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > 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
>> jettyserver
>> > > > 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
>>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
Hi folks,
I'd like to say something more about jetty integration. We should reach an
agreement on how to integrate/use jetty in Harmony. There are some concerns
I can image now:
1. Where to put jetty? support or luni module or somewhere else? It depends
on question 2.
2. How to use jetty? How many jetty instances are there? Singleton or
multiple instances? In other word, shall we start only one jetty server at
the beginning before running all tests? or will we start/destroy embedded
jetty server at will in any test case? Seems jetty supports both options.
3. How to write jetty based test?. Multi-thread network test always is a
problem to us. I found it's also hard to be theoretically.
According to the description above, I suggest put jetty in support module,
and encapsulate a class (i.e Support_JettyServer) with some public methods
for test writing (i.e getJettyPort(), setHandler(), set...). The advantage
of this approach hides all jetty details in support. Once jetty support
class is ready, all modules can write http tests in the same way.
Any suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks!
On 8/1/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 jettyserver
> > > 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 jettyserver.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 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 jettyserver
> > > > 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
>
--
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty
based tests)
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
>> 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?
>
> No! This is why I have asked you :)
> Have you heard about Apache FTP server [1]? Just found this in Google.
> It has the right words in the description: "The Apache FTP Server is a
> 100% pure Java FTP server."
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ftpserver/
FYI, that project is dead and ready to be 'frozen' out of incubation.
I completely agree that Jetty is a better choice than Tomcat in terms of
testing because it has no dependencies on external packages but the
servlet API (and even that dependency can be optional) [I'm talking
about version 6.0]
Tomcat was not designed with that kind of embeddability and
lightweightness in mind.
--
Stefano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Alexei Zakharov <al...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andrew,
> 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?
No! This is why I have asked you :)
Have you heard about Apache FTP server [1]? Just found this in Google.
It has the right words in the description: "The Apache FTP Server is a
100% pure Java FTP server."
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/ftpserver/
Regards,
2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>:
> 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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty
based tests)
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Does somebody have numbers why Jetty is so light-weighted comparing to
> Tomcat? I believe Tomcat can also be executed directly from Java code.
> And a lot of stuff can also be removed from Tomcat - connectors,
> examples and so on. Am I wrong?
The last time I thought about this it was no contest - I integrated
jetty in something like 3 lines of code. It was really nice. Tomcat
wasn't reasonably integrateable at that time. Maybe it's changed.
I don't really care which one we used, and am hoping the integration is
direct, lightweight and simple, auto-installing/configurting, starting
and stopping...
>
> Regards,
>
> 2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>:
>> 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 <de...@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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
On 8/16/06, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Might be related to this topic:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1186
> [classlib][nio] unable to Http connect to Jetty server on Harmony
Great! Are you working on jetty integration too, Mikhail? Thanks!
Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/8/16, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>:
> > On 8/8/06, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com> wrote:
> >
> > > yes, jetty has kept that as a goal, while Tomcat has built out and
> > > expanded its options and configurations.
> > > jetty also doesn't implement any JSP logic, only http and servlet.
> > > creating a custom light-weight tomcat, may be more work than needed, I
> > > can look into that.
> > > I'd be happy to look into providing a patch for jetty,
> > > there is also - http://asyncweb.safehaus.org/ which builds on the
> > > apachemina project.
> > >
> > > I agree, the goal should be easy and quick integration, you'll hear
> from
> > > me in a couple of days.
> >
> >
> > Filip, glad to hear that! I'm looking excluded tests in luni module, and
> > plan to work on them in the following days.
> > I believe you have already been working on jetty integration. :) Any
> plan
> > to upload patches? Or could I do anything for you if possible?
> >
> > We may work on jetty and http related exclude tests together if you are
> > interested :) Thanks!
> >
> > Filip
> > >
> > >
> > > Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > Does somebody have numbers why Jetty is so light-weighted comparing
> to
> > > > Tomcat? I believe Tomcat can also be executed directly from Java
> code.
> > > > And a lot of stuff can also be removed from Tomcat - connectors,
> > > > examples and so on. Am I wrong?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > 2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>:
> > > >> 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 <de...@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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
Might be related to this topic:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1186
[classlib][nio] unable to Http connect to Jetty server on Harmony
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/8/16, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>:
> On 8/8/06, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com> wrote:
>
> > yes, jetty has kept that as a goal, while Tomcat has built out and
> > expanded its options and configurations.
> > jetty also doesn't implement any JSP logic, only http and servlet.
> > creating a custom light-weight tomcat, may be more work than needed, I
> > can look into that.
> > I'd be happy to look into providing a patch for jetty,
> > there is also - http://asyncweb.safehaus.org/ which builds on the
> > apachemina project.
> >
> > I agree, the goal should be easy and quick integration, you'll hear from
> > me in a couple of days.
>
>
> Filip, glad to hear that! I'm looking excluded tests in luni module, and
> plan to work on them in the following days.
> I believe you have already been working on jetty integration. :) Any plan
> to upload patches? Or could I do anything for you if possible?
>
> We may work on jetty and http related exclude tests together if you are
> interested :) Thanks!
>
> Filip
> >
> >
> > Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > Does somebody have numbers why Jetty is so light-weighted comparing to
> > > Tomcat? I believe Tomcat can also be executed directly from Java code.
> > > And a lot of stuff can also be removed from Tomcat - connectors,
> > > examples and so on. Am I wrong?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > 2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>:
> > >> 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 <de...@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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
On 8/8/06, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com> wrote:
> yes, jetty has kept that as a goal, while Tomcat has built out and
> expanded its options and configurations.
> jetty also doesn't implement any JSP logic, only http and servlet.
> creating a custom light-weight tomcat, may be more work than needed, I
> can look into that.
> I'd be happy to look into providing a patch for jetty,
> there is also - http://asyncweb.safehaus.org/ which builds on the
> apachemina project.
>
> I agree, the goal should be easy and quick integration, you'll hear from
> me in a couple of days.
Filip, glad to hear that! I'm looking excluded tests in luni module, and
plan to work on them in the following days.
I believe you have already been working on jetty integration. :) Any plan
to upload patches? Or could I do anything for you if possible?
We may work on jetty and http related exclude tests together if you are
interested :) Thanks!
Filip
>
>
> Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > Does somebody have numbers why Jetty is so light-weighted comparing to
> > Tomcat? I believe Tomcat can also be executed directly from Java code.
> > And a lot of stuff can also be removed from Tomcat - connectors,
> > examples and so on. Am I wrong?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>:
> >> 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 <de...@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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty
based tests)
Posted by Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>.
yes, jetty has kept that as a goal, while Tomcat has built out and
expanded its options and configurations.
jetty also doesn't implement any JSP logic, only http and servlet.
creating a custom light-weight tomcat, may be more work than needed, I
can look into that.
I'd be happy to look into providing a patch for jetty,
there is also - http://asyncweb.safehaus.org/ which builds on the
apachemina project.
I agree, the goal should be easy and quick integration, you'll hear from
me in a couple of days.
Filip
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Does somebody have numbers why Jetty is so light-weighted comparing to
> Tomcat? I believe Tomcat can also be executed directly from Java code.
> And a lot of stuff can also be removed from Tomcat - connectors,
> examples and so on. Am I wrong?
>
> Regards,
>
> 2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>:
>> 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 <de...@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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Mikhail Fursov <mi...@gmail.com>.
AFAIK embedding Tomcat is an easy task too.
Examples:
http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2002/04/03/tomcat.html?page=1
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-5.0-doc/catalina/docs/api/org/apache/catalina/startup/Embedded.html
but you have to add a lot of JAR files to make it work:
- <CATALINA_HOME>/bin/bootstrap.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/server/lib/catalina.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/server/lib/servlet-cgi.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/server/lib/servlets-common.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/server/lib/servlets-default.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/server/lib/servlets-invoker.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/server/lib/servlets-manager.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/server/lib/servlets-snoop.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/server/lib/servlets-ssi.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/server/lib/servlets-webdav.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/server/lib/jakarta-regexp-1.2.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/lib/naming-factory.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/common/lib/crimson.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/common/lib/jasper-compiler.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/common/lib/jasper-runtime.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/common/lib/jaxp.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/common/lib/jndi.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/common/lib/naming-common.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/common/lib/naming-resources.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/common/lib/servlet.jar
- <CATALINA_HOME>/common/lib/tools.jar
when Jetty is designed to be embedded easily.
On 8/8/06, Alexei Zakharov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> Does somebody have numbers why Jetty is so light-weighted comparing to
> Tomcat? I believe Tomcat can also be executed directly from Java code.
> And a lot of stuff can also be removed from Tomcat - connectors,
> examples and so on. Am I wrong?
>
> Regards,
>
> 2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>:
> > 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 <de...@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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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.nettests
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
Mikhail Fursov
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Alexei Zakharov <al...@gmail.com>.
Guys,
Does somebody have numbers why Jetty is so light-weighted comparing to
Tomcat? I believe Tomcat can also be executed directly from Java code.
And a lot of stuff can also be removed from Tomcat - connectors,
examples and so on. Am I wrong?
Regards,
2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>:
> 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 <de...@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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
>
>
--
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
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 <de...@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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty
based tests)
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists 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,
>
IMHO, we only need an embedded light-weighted server for unit testing
purpose, which could be run in the same process of Harmony unit tests.
As you know, Tomcat provides more powerful functionalities, we are just
wondering how to use it. Do you have any suggestion? Thanks a lot.
Best regards,
Richard.
> 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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty
based tests)
Posted by Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>.
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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com>.
On 8/8/06, 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!
Patches are welcome. :-)
Thanks,
Stepan.
On 8/1/06, Alexei Zakharov <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > >
>
--
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>.
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 <al...@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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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
>
>
--
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Posted by Alexei Zakharov <al...@gmail.com>.
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 <zh...@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 <st...@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 <ge...@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