On Feb 4, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi All...
On 2/4/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 3, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2007, at 5:00 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
>> On 2/4/07, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I was thinking it would be nice if client code could call use the
>>> OpenEJB injection facilities. Say you have some unit tests. You
>>> could in the setUp method, lookup a bunch of stuff in JNDI and
write
>>> it into fields, but it would be much nicer to simple annotate
your
>>> fields and have OpenEJB inject directly. I'm thinking of
something
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> public class SomeTest extends TestCase {
>>> @Resource
>>> private SomeEjb someEjb;
>>>
>>> public void setUp() {
>>> OpenEJB.inject(this);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> I can think of a bunch of ways we could implement this, but
what do
>>> you think of the idea generally?
I think it would be nice to let other *ENTITY* initialize the test
case, I
think of the test suite itself. For example the the local test
suite could
be initialized with the properties needed to get the local initial
context,
and the same for the remote test suite to get the remote initial
context and
we can override the addTest method of the test suite so it
initializes the
added tests and then preforms the normal test case addition to the
suite, by
this way we will have minor code changes, thoughts ???
I wouldn't want to mess with our own tests suite too much as we try
to keep it strictly ejb-spec compliant.
But definitely for test code in user-land the approach you describe
could be a pretty slick test framework. I say go for it.
I think the InitialContext approach I mention would be a good
alternate for those who don't want to have any compile-time deps in
their test code on OpenEJB classes. It'd also work for any client
(doesn't have to be a test case).
-David
>> Yeah, that would be of help.
>>
>> There's one caveat with it. When I first read the email of yours I
>> couldn't see the point because of the name which would perform the
>> injection. That's what the method would do, wouldn't it? So why it
>> isn't called performInjection or doInjection or alike? Other than
>> that
>> the idea's excellent.
>
> I don't really care what it is called. I just found the phrase
> "inject this" funny in english.
Check out this thread. http://www.nabble.com/%40EJB-injection-for-
TestCases-%28would-be-cool%29-tf2889639s2756.html#a8072860
One of the ideas we came up with there was people could pass a
reference to their TestCase instance along with the other
InitialContext params.
-David
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
