[GitHub] [maven-surefire] rpdai edited a comment on issue #240: [SUREFIRE-1658] TCP/IP Channel for forked Surefire JVM. Extensions API and SPI. Polymorphism for remote and local process communication.

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

rpdai edited a comment on issue #240: [SUREFIRE-1658] TCP/IP Channel for forked Surefire JVM. Extensions API and SPI. Polymorphism for remote and local process communication.
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/240#issuecomment-545808393
 
 
   @jon-bell that sounds fantastic to me, and I can see you have put a lot of work and thought into it. Much more sense than Netty for this use case, Netty makes much more sense for a longer running server, e.g. a HTTP server or a message broker. For short lived Maven processes it seems a very big hammer. I think this vindicates your test results @Tibor17.
   
   > I would be very happy to take [our fast, Java socket-based implementation](https://github.com/gmu-swe/maven-surefire/pull/2) and refactor it to use the abstractions that you've created here for managing the communication, and re-apply those changes to `maven2surefire-jvm-communication`. However, your branch `maven2surefire-jvm-communication` is currently not compiling correctly, and I am not sure what the most appropriate fix will be. Please let me know if this would be a useful contribution, and if so, how to proceed based on the broken status of this branch.
   
   Sounds like this next step needs your input @Tibor17? When you are both ready, feel free to @ me and I will try to build and test against our big multi-module build and redirect STDOUT from tests too; it's quite a complex real world test.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services