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
