You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cayenne.apache.org by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> on 2006/08/09 15:43:10 UTC
JPA Integration tests with Maven
Can confirm what IIRC Bill has mentioned before - using "-javaagent"
option during integration testing with Maven breaks miserably. I
created a separate Maven project with a piece of configuration like
that:
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<configuration>
<forkMode>(tried all of them)</forkMode>
<childDelegation>(tried true and false)</childDelegation>
<argLine>-javaagent:...</argLine>
</configuration>
</plugin>
The configuration above would load the agent, but since Maven
Surefire plugin installs its own ClassLoader for the unit tests, the
agent doesn't work (I saw a number of errors depending on the
combination of parameters). Will probably have to do it with Ant.
Also this almost make me want to rewrite the JPA context to support
true POJO's without an enhancer, as I suspect we'll be plagued by
enhancer related problems in various environments. We can probably
keep the enhancer as an optional extension for "Cayenne-like"
behavior, including such "insignificant" things like lazy
relationship loading.
Andrus
Re: JPA Integration tests with Maven
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On Aug 10, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> This might be an opportunity to look at the enhancer (agent) to see
> why it has dependencies on Cayenne, jpa spec etc.) There should be
> a pretty clear separation of the enhancer contract and the Cayenne
> runtime behavior.
You are entirely correct - see my other message - I fixed it already
in SVN.
>> A small problem remains - Maven2 doesn't seem to have a way to
>> expose a combined dependency classpath in the POM as a property.
>> Sucks...
>>
> I've found the Maven guys to be pretty responsive. If you describe
> your problem well enough, they might turn around a patch in a few
> days. Worst case, they will tell you how to write the fix
> yourself. :-)
I probably didn't describe the it well enough, as there was deafening
silence in response to the email I sent last night to maven-user :-)
Andrus
Re: JPA Integration tests with Maven
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Andrus,
On Aug 10, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Ok, looks like I found the problem - all Cayenne jars and all
> dependencies (such as jpa spec, commons-logging, etc., etc.) have
> to be added to the "-bootclasspath" of the forked unit test (in
> addition to "-javaagent").
This might be an opportunity to look at the enhancer (agent) to see
why it has dependencies on Cayenne, jpa spec etc.) There should be a
pretty clear separation of the enhancer contract and the Cayenne
runtime behavior.
> A small problem remains - Maven2 doesn't seem to have a way to
> expose a combined dependency classpath in the POM as a property.
> Sucks...
>
I've found the Maven guys to be pretty responsive. If you describe
your problem well enough, they might turn around a patch in a few
days. Worst case, they will tell you how to write the fix yourself. :-)
Craig
> Andrus
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> I certainly realize the benefits of the enhancer in case of pseudo-
>> POJO JPA-style persistence, and I agree with your design points
>> (the same that you made during your presentation in Dublin).
>>
>> Unfortunately in practice it causes lots of pain, and I expect
>> more to come. Oh well, I'll keep banging my head against this
>> particular wall...
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrus,
>>>
>>> I think you will find the enhancer to be a very valuable tool to
>>> use to improve performance and the usability of Cayenne for JPA.
>>> All of the players in JPA use the enhancement concept to advantage.
>>>
>>> It's probably worthwhile working through these issues. With Java
>>> SE 5 supporting agents, it is much more portable than with
>>> previous releases.
>>>
>>> Surefire plugin will might need to be adapted to use the agent
>>> with forked jvm. I don't understand why it would be necessary if
>>> you're running in the same vm. The agent applies to all but the
>>> system class loader IIRC.
>>>
>>> By the way, you might post to open-jpa-dev alias because they use
>>> surefire for testing and they apparently have made it work ok.
>>>
>>>> We can probably keep the enhancer as an optional extension for
>>>> "Cayenne-like" behavior, including such "insignificant" things
>>>> like lazy relationship loading.
>>>
>>> I think JPA users will expect lazy loading to work correctly. And
>>> it's not just for relationships. Any expensive field (e.g.
>>> relationship, LOB) will benefit from lazy loading semantics.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can confirm what IIRC Bill has mentioned before - using "-
>>>> javaagent" option during integration testing with Maven breaks
>>>> miserably. I created a separate Maven project with a piece of
>>>> configuration like that:
>>>>
>>>> <plugin>
>>>> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
>>>> <configuration>
>>>> <forkMode>(tried all of them)</forkMode>
>>>> <childDelegation>(tried true and false)</childDelegation>
>>>> <argLine>-javaagent:...</argLine>
>>>> </configuration>
>>>> </plugin>
>>>>
>>>> The configuration above would load the agent, but since Maven
>>>> Surefire plugin installs its own ClassLoader for the unit tests,
>>>> the agent doesn't work (I saw a number of errors depending on
>>>> the combination of parameters). Will probably have to do it with
>>>> Ant.
>>>>
>>>> Also this almost make me want to rewrite the JPA context to
>>>> support true POJO's without an enhancer, as I suspect we'll be
>>>> plagued by enhancer related problems in various environments. We
>>>> can probably keep the enhancer as an optional extension for
>>>> "Cayenne-like" behavior, including such "insignificant" things
>>>> like lazy relationship loading.
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>> products/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>
>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: JPA Integration tests with Maven
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Just fixed that by adding a new single class Maven module for the
agent that has no dependencies on anything, and thus can be
bootstrapped without much trouble (rather cayenne-jpa module depends
on cayenne-jpa-agent).
Will be moving integration tests to the main Maven tree shortly.
Andrus
On Aug 10, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Ok, looks like I found the problem - all Cayenne jars and all
> dependencies (such as jpa spec, commons-logging, etc., etc.) have
> to be added to the "-bootclasspath" of the forked unit test (in
> addition to "-javaagent"). A small problem remains - Maven2 doesn't
> seem to have a way to expose a combined dependency classpath in the
> POM as a property. Sucks...
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> I certainly realize the benefits of the enhancer in case of pseudo-
>> POJO JPA-style persistence, and I agree with your design points
>> (the same that you made during your presentation in Dublin).
>>
>> Unfortunately in practice it causes lots of pain, and I expect
>> more to come. Oh well, I'll keep banging my head against this
>> particular wall...
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrus,
>>>
>>> I think you will find the enhancer to be a very valuable tool to
>>> use to improve performance and the usability of Cayenne for JPA.
>>> All of the players in JPA use the enhancement concept to advantage.
>>>
>>> It's probably worthwhile working through these issues. With Java
>>> SE 5 supporting agents, it is much more portable than with
>>> previous releases.
>>>
>>> Surefire plugin will might need to be adapted to use the agent
>>> with forked jvm. I don't understand why it would be necessary if
>>> you're running in the same vm. The agent applies to all but the
>>> system class loader IIRC.
>>>
>>> By the way, you might post to open-jpa-dev alias because they use
>>> surefire for testing and they apparently have made it work ok.
>>>
>>>> We can probably keep the enhancer as an optional extension for
>>>> "Cayenne-like" behavior, including such "insignificant" things
>>>> like lazy relationship loading.
>>>
>>> I think JPA users will expect lazy loading to work correctly. And
>>> it's not just for relationships. Any expensive field (e.g.
>>> relationship, LOB) will benefit from lazy loading semantics.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can confirm what IIRC Bill has mentioned before - using "-
>>>> javaagent" option during integration testing with Maven breaks
>>>> miserably. I created a separate Maven project with a piece of
>>>> configuration like that:
>>>>
>>>> <plugin>
>>>> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
>>>> <configuration>
>>>> <forkMode>(tried all of them)</forkMode>
>>>> <childDelegation>(tried true and false)</childDelegation>
>>>> <argLine>-javaagent:...</argLine>
>>>> </configuration>
>>>> </plugin>
>>>>
>>>> The configuration above would load the agent, but since Maven
>>>> Surefire plugin installs its own ClassLoader for the unit tests,
>>>> the agent doesn't work (I saw a number of errors depending on
>>>> the combination of parameters). Will probably have to do it with
>>>> Ant.
>>>>
>>>> Also this almost make me want to rewrite the JPA context to
>>>> support true POJO's without an enhancer, as I suspect we'll be
>>>> plagued by enhancer related problems in various environments. We
>>>> can probably keep the enhancer as an optional extension for
>>>> "Cayenne-like" behavior, including such "insignificant" things
>>>> like lazy relationship loading.
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>> products/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: JPA Integration tests with Maven
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Ok, looks like I found the problem - all Cayenne jars and all
dependencies (such as jpa spec, commons-logging, etc., etc.) have to
be added to the "-bootclasspath" of the forked unit test (in addition
to "-javaagent"). A small problem remains - Maven2 doesn't seem to
have a way to expose a combined dependency classpath in the POM as a
property. Sucks...
Andrus
On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> I certainly realize the benefits of the enhancer in case of pseudo-
> POJO JPA-style persistence, and I agree with your design points
> (the same that you made during your presentation in Dublin).
>
> Unfortunately in practice it causes lots of pain, and I expect more
> to come. Oh well, I'll keep banging my head against this particular
> wall...
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrus,
>>
>> I think you will find the enhancer to be a very valuable tool to
>> use to improve performance and the usability of Cayenne for JPA.
>> All of the players in JPA use the enhancement concept to advantage.
>>
>> It's probably worthwhile working through these issues. With Java
>> SE 5 supporting agents, it is much more portable than with
>> previous releases.
>>
>> Surefire plugin will might need to be adapted to use the agent
>> with forked jvm. I don't understand why it would be necessary if
>> you're running in the same vm. The agent applies to all but the
>> system class loader IIRC.
>>
>> By the way, you might post to open-jpa-dev alias because they use
>> surefire for testing and they apparently have made it work ok.
>>
>>> We can probably keep the enhancer as an optional extension for
>>> "Cayenne-like" behavior, including such "insignificant" things
>>> like lazy relationship loading.
>>
>> I think JPA users will expect lazy loading to work correctly. And
>> it's not just for relationships. Any expensive field (e.g.
>> relationship, LOB) will benefit from lazy loading semantics.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>
>>> Can confirm what IIRC Bill has mentioned before - using "-
>>> javaagent" option during integration testing with Maven breaks
>>> miserably. I created a separate Maven project with a piece of
>>> configuration like that:
>>>
>>> <plugin>
>>> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
>>> <configuration>
>>> <forkMode>(tried all of them)</forkMode>
>>> <childDelegation>(tried true and false)</childDelegation>
>>> <argLine>-javaagent:...</argLine>
>>> </configuration>
>>> </plugin>
>>>
>>> The configuration above would load the agent, but since Maven
>>> Surefire plugin installs its own ClassLoader for the unit tests,
>>> the agent doesn't work (I saw a number of errors depending on the
>>> combination of parameters). Will probably have to do it with Ant.
>>>
>>> Also this almost make me want to rewrite the JPA context to
>>> support true POJO's without an enhancer, as I suspect we'll be
>>> plagued by enhancer related problems in various environments. We
>>> can probably keep the enhancer as an optional extension for
>>> "Cayenne-like" behavior, including such "insignificant" things
>>> like lazy relationship loading.
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
>
Re: JPA Integration tests with Maven
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Hi Craig,
I certainly realize the benefits of the enhancer in case of pseudo-
POJO JPA-style persistence, and I agree with your design points (the
same that you made during your presentation in Dublin).
Unfortunately in practice it causes lots of pain, and I expect more
to come. Oh well, I'll keep banging my head against this particular
wall...
Andrus
On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Andrus,
>
> I think you will find the enhancer to be a very valuable tool to
> use to improve performance and the usability of Cayenne for JPA.
> All of the players in JPA use the enhancement concept to advantage.
>
> It's probably worthwhile working through these issues. With Java SE
> 5 supporting agents, it is much more portable than with previous
> releases.
>
> Surefire plugin will might need to be adapted to use the agent with
> forked jvm. I don't understand why it would be necessary if you're
> running in the same vm. The agent applies to all but the system
> class loader IIRC.
>
> By the way, you might post to open-jpa-dev alias because they use
> surefire for testing and they apparently have made it work ok.
>
>> We can probably keep the enhancer as an optional extension for
>> "Cayenne-like" behavior, including such "insignificant" things
>> like lazy relationship loading.
>
> I think JPA users will expect lazy loading to work correctly. And
> it's not just for relationships. Any expensive field (e.g.
> relationship, LOB) will benefit from lazy loading semantics.
>
> Craig
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> Can confirm what IIRC Bill has mentioned before - using "-
>> javaagent" option during integration testing with Maven breaks
>> miserably. I created a separate Maven project with a piece of
>> configuration like that:
>>
>> <plugin>
>> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
>> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
>> <configuration>
>> <forkMode>(tried all of them)</forkMode>
>> <childDelegation>(tried true and false)</childDelegation>
>> <argLine>-javaagent:...</argLine>
>> </configuration>
>> </plugin>
>>
>> The configuration above would load the agent, but since Maven
>> Surefire plugin installs its own ClassLoader for the unit tests,
>> the agent doesn't work (I saw a number of errors depending on the
>> combination of parameters). Will probably have to do it with Ant.
>>
>> Also this almost make me want to rewrite the JPA context to
>> support true POJO's without an enhancer, as I suspect we'll be
>> plagued by enhancer related problems in various environments. We
>> can probably keep the enhancer as an optional extension for
>> "Cayenne-like" behavior, including such "insignificant" things
>> like lazy relationship loading.
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: JPA Integration tests with Maven
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Andrus,
I think you will find the enhancer to be a very valuable tool to use
to improve performance and the usability of Cayenne for JPA. All of
the players in JPA use the enhancement concept to advantage.
It's probably worthwhile working through these issues. With Java SE 5
supporting agents, it is much more portable than with previous releases.
Surefire plugin will might need to be adapted to use the agent with
forked jvm. I don't understand why it would be necessary if you're
running in the same vm. The agent applies to all but the system class
loader IIRC.
By the way, you might post to open-jpa-dev alias because they use
surefire for testing and they apparently have made it work ok.
> We can probably keep the enhancer as an optional extension for
> "Cayenne-like" behavior, including such "insignificant" things like
> lazy relationship loading.
I think JPA users will expect lazy loading to work correctly. And
it's not just for relationships. Any expensive field (e.g.
relationship, LOB) will benefit from lazy loading semantics.
Craig
On Aug 9, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Can confirm what IIRC Bill has mentioned before - using "-
> javaagent" option during integration testing with Maven breaks
> miserably. I created a separate Maven project with a piece of
> configuration like that:
>
> <plugin>
> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
> <configuration>
> <forkMode>(tried all of them)</forkMode>
> <childDelegation>(tried true and false)</childDelegation>
> <argLine>-javaagent:...</argLine>
> </configuration>
> </plugin>
>
> The configuration above would load the agent, but since Maven
> Surefire plugin installs its own ClassLoader for the unit tests,
> the agent doesn't work (I saw a number of errors depending on the
> combination of parameters). Will probably have to do it with Ant.
>
> Also this almost make me want to rewrite the JPA context to support
> true POJO's without an enhancer, as I suspect we'll be plagued by
> enhancer related problems in various environments. We can probably
> keep the enhancer as an optional extension for "Cayenne-like"
> behavior, including such "insignificant" things like lazy
> relationship loading.
>
> Andrus
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!