2006/5/23, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> Can jetty send back for example a response consisting of the following
> 4 bytes:
>
> 0x00 0x01 0x02 0x03
>
> ?
Have you checked ?
I'm just asking. I do not state that
Best regards,
George
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/5/23, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> > On 5/23/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi, Stepan,
>> >>
>> >> "With mock objects this can be done with no problems and HARMONY-164
>> >> demonstrates the possible way."
>> >>
>> >> Shall we write a mock http server for each case? It takes lots of
>> >> reduplicate efforts and results in many mock http server classes
>> in the
>> >> end.
>> >
>> >
>> > No we shouldn't write a mock http server for each case (I mean that we
>> > need
>> > not implement http protocol each time).
>> But we still need to implement http protocol sometimes. That's what we
>> can leverage from current product such as Jetty.
>> > In "HARMONY-164 version" mock server
>> > is an instance of class that extends Thread class. The mock server is
>> > started before running test and by default is just listens for
>> incoming
>> > connection. A test has access to server's instance and may
>> configure it
>> > response (I didn't implemented but it is also possible to save request
>> > to be
>> > verified). There is no http protocol implementation.
>> >
>> > In fact, for many regular tests, jetty works fine.
>> >>
>> >> And I also agree that for negative tests and some other special tests
>> >> which
>> >> jetty could not satisfy , we should use mock http server instead.
>> >
>> >
>> > So we have to develop mock server anyway. And the mock server can
>> be used
>> > for other ('positive') tests. Right? Then why we have to use jetty?
>> >
>> If I understand correctly, the positive tests needs understand the http
>> protocol, doesn't it?
>>
>> BTW, I just checked the Jetty's JavaDoc quickly, and found that the
>> HttpContext can set customized ResourceHandlers, so that I can see some
>> possibility to provide negative test by Jetty easily. For example, we
>> can define a standard negative test context as path "/mockerror", and
>> set a MockErrorResourceHandler for this context, which outputs negative
>> result to client, and the mocked ResourceHandler should only need to
>> override handle() method.
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > Stepan.
>> >
>> > What's your opnion?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 5/23/06, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
>> >> >
>> >> > 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?
>> >> >
>> >> > 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?
>> >> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > 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?
>> >> >
>> >> > 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]
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Stepan Mishura
>> >> > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> >> >
>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew Zhang
>> >> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paulex Yang
>> China Software Development Lab
>> IBM
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
