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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
