On 8/8/06, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yes, jetty has kept that as a goal, while Tomcat has built out and expanded its options and configurations. jetty also doesn't implement any JSP logic, only http and servlet. creating a custom light-weight tomcat, may be more work than needed, I can look into that. I'd be happy to look into providing a patch for jetty, there is also - http://asyncweb.safehaus.org/ which builds on the apachemina project. I agree, the goal should be easy and quick integration, you'll hear from me in a couple of days.
Filip, glad to hear that! I'm looking excluded tests in luni module, and plan to work on them in the following days. I believe you have already been working on jetty integration. :) Any plan to upload patches? Or could I do anything for you if possible? We may work on jetty and http related exclude tests together if you are interested :) Thanks! Filip
Alexei Zakharov wrote: > Guys, > > Does somebody have numbers why Jetty is so light-weighted comparing to > Tomcat? I believe Tomcat can also be executed directly from Java code. > And a lot of stuff can also be removed from Tomcat - connectors, > examples and so on. Am I wrong? > > Regards, > > 2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 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 >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
