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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 ([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]
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alexei Zakharov,
> >> Intel Middleware Product Division
> >>
> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
