Hi All...
I started to work on a rough implementation related to how to inject EJB
refs into test clients. I was suggesting to do the injection within test
suites, but I found that it is a bad idea as the test suites are initialized
before the container, so we will not be able to initialize the EJB refs. I
am working on another idea in my mind, and will keep you updated with info
when I get to a proper solution.
On 2/6/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/6/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> 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
AFAIU you, you mean that we should initialize the test suite with the
initial context, or at least the info it needs to create one, if this what
you mean I totally agree with, if not it would be nice to explain more for a
not talented man like me :).
>
> >>>
> >> >> 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
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
