Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately I do not have access to a NTLM proxy, so this remains to be tested yet. Isn't that an excellent occasion to use our new Proxy testing tools? Can't be too difficult... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Odi, yes, it is. If someone could post the wirelog of NTLM proxy + basic host authentication as a reference. It is hard to mimic behaviour of a proxy server which you have on access to. BTW, do you mind using a bit more exotic port number for the proxy testing framework than 8080? Oleg -Original Message- From: Ortwin Glück [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:19 To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately I do not have access to a NTLM proxy, so this remains to be tested yet. Isn't that an excellent occasion to use our new Proxy testing tools? Can't be too difficult... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: Odi, yes, it is. If someone could post the wirelog of NTLM proxy + basic host authentication as a reference. It is hard to mimic behaviour of a proxy server which you have on access to. BTW, do you mind using a bit more exotic port number for the proxy testing framework than 8080? Oleg Uhm.. I don't think 8080 is hardcoded. You can query the Proxy class for the port it listens on and it will just use a free one. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Odi, TestProxy#testSimpleGet and TestProxy#testAuthGet fail on me when Tomcat is running locally and 'httpclient.test.localPort' system property is not set (which is quite often the case with me). Can we pick just any other less common number per default? 8088? 8880? Oleg -Original Message- From: Ortwin Glück [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:41 To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: Odi, yes, it is. If someone could post the wirelog of NTLM proxy + basic host authentication as a reference. It is hard to mimic behaviour of a proxy server which you have on access to. BTW, do you mind using a bit more exotic port number for the proxy testing framework than 8080? Oleg Uhm.. I don't think 8080 is hardcoded. You can query the Proxy class for the port it listens on and it will just use a free one. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: Odi, TestProxy#testSimpleGet and TestProxy#testAuthGet fail on me when Tomcat is running locally and 'httpclient.test.localPort' system property is not set (which is quite often the case with me). Can we pick just any other less common number per default? 8088? 8880? Oleg Ah I guess there is a misunderstanding. The proxy test currently runs against the Webapp! Only the proxy is local but the final request goes to the webapp. Just make sure there is something on localhost:8080/. Maybe the Get should use a simple server as well instead of the webapp. Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Odi You are right. Unfortunately the problem is still there and is somehow JDK dependent. These two tests pass when running on Sun JDK 1.4 but fail on Sun JDK 1.2.2 Sun JDK 1.3.1 with the following exception (which led me to believe that the proxy was trying to listen on port 8080): java.net.BindException: Cannot assign requested address: connect at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketConnect(Native Method) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.doConnect(PlainSocketImpl.java:350) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connectToAddress(PlainSocketImpl.java:137) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connect(PlainSocketImpl.java:124) at java.net.Socket.init(Socket.java:268) at java.net.Socket.init(Socket.java:95) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.protocol.DefaultProtocolSocketFactory.createSocket(DefaultProtocolSocketFactory.java:105) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpConnection.open(HttpConnection.java:682) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpMethodDirector.executeWithRetry(HttpMethodDirector.java:298) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpMethodDirector.executeMethod(HttpMethodDirector.java:172) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpClient.executeMethod(HttpClient.java:468) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpClient.executeMethod(HttpClient.java:355) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.TestProxy.testSimpleGet(TestProxy.java:107) Can it be that the proxy uses some 1.4 specific methods? Oleg -Original Message- From: Ortwin Glück [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 13:41 To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: Odi, TestProxy#testSimpleGet and TestProxy#testAuthGet fail on me when Tomcat is running locally and 'httpclient.test.localPort' system property is not set (which is quite often the case with me). Can we pick just any other less common number per default? 8088? 8880? Oleg Ah I guess there is a misunderstanding. The proxy test currently runs against the Webapp! Only the proxy is local but the final request goes to the webapp. Just make sure there is something on localhost:8080/. Maybe the Get should use a simple server as well instead of the webapp. Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
I am using Win2k, JDK 1.3.1 for both Tomcat 4.1.24 and for running the tests. I get no exceptions from TestProxy. The proxy code does not use any 1.4 specific stuff either. During development of the patch I was using Linux and JDK 1.4.x So I don't think it is a JDK issue. Maybe it's a platform issue though. There is only one line which may be problematic in TestProxy: hc.setProxy(proxy.getLocalAddress(), proxy.getLocalPort()); Maybe proxy.getLocalAddress() does not return anything useful on your machine? HTH Odi Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: Odi You are right. Unfortunately the problem is still there and is somehow JDK dependent. These two tests pass when running on Sun JDK 1.4 but fail on Sun JDK 1.2.2 Sun JDK 1.3.1 with the following exception (which led me to believe that the proxy was trying to listen on port 8080): java.net.BindException: Cannot assign requested address: connect at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketConnect(Native Method) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.doConnect(PlainSocketImpl.java:350) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connectToAddress(PlainSocketImpl.java:137) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connect(PlainSocketImpl.java:124) at java.net.Socket.init(Socket.java:268) at java.net.Socket.init(Socket.java:95) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.protocol.DefaultProtocolSocketFactory.createSocket(DefaultProtocolSocketFactory.java:105) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpConnection.open(HttpConnection.java:682) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpMethodDirector.executeWithRetry(HttpMethodDirector.java:298) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpMethodDirector.executeMethod(HttpMethodDirector.java:172) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpClient.executeMethod(HttpClient.java:468) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpClient.executeMethod(HttpClient.java:355) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.TestProxy.testSimpleGet(TestProxy.java:107) Can it be that the proxy uses some 1.4 specific methods? Oleg -Original Message- From: Ortwin Glück [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 13:41 To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: Odi, TestProxy#testSimpleGet and TestProxy#testAuthGet fail on me when Tomcat is running locally and 'httpclient.test.localPort' system property is not set (which is quite often the case with me). Can we pick just any other less common number per default? 8088? 8880? Oleg Ah I guess there is a misunderstanding. The proxy test currently runs against the Webapp! Only the proxy is local but the final request goes to the webapp. Just make sure there is something on localhost:8080/. Maybe the Get should use a simple server as well instead of the webapp. Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- _ NOSE applied intelligence ag ortwin glück [www] http://www.nose.ch software engineer [email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] hardturmstrasse 171 [pgp key] 0x81CF3416 8005 zürich [office] +41-1-277 57 35 switzerland [fax] +41-1-277 57 12 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
I believe I get consistent results (the said exception) on both Win2K and Redhat 9 Linux. I'll figure it out, no worries. Oleg -Original Message- From: Ortwin Glück [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 14:25 To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization I am using Win2k, JDK 1.3.1 for both Tomcat 4.1.24 and for running the tests. I get no exceptions from TestProxy. The proxy code does not use any 1.4 specific stuff either. During development of the patch I was using Linux and JDK 1.4.x So I don't think it is a JDK issue. Maybe it's a platform issue though. There is only one line which may be problematic in TestProxy: hc.setProxy(proxy.getLocalAddress(), proxy.getLocalPort()); Maybe proxy.getLocalAddress() does not return anything useful on your machine? HTH Odi Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: Odi You are right. Unfortunately the problem is still there and is somehow JDK dependent. These two tests pass when running on Sun JDK 1.4 but fail on Sun JDK 1.2.2 Sun JDK 1.3.1 with the following exception (which led me to believe that the proxy was trying to listen on port 8080): java.net.BindException: Cannot assign requested address: connect at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketConnect(Native Method) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.doConnect(PlainSocketImpl.java:350) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connectToAddress(PlainSocketImpl.java:137) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connect(PlainSocketImpl.java:124) at java.net.Socket.init(Socket.java:268) at java.net.Socket.init(Socket.java:95) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.protocol.DefaultProtocolSocketFactory.createSocket(DefaultProtocolSocketFactory.java:105) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpConnection.open(HttpConnection.java:682) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpMethodDirector.executeWithRetry(HttpMethodDirector.java:298) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpMethodDirector.executeMethod(HttpMethodDirector.java:172) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpClient.executeMethod(HttpClient.java:468) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpClient.executeMethod(HttpClient.java:355) at org.apache.commons.httpclient.TestProxy.testSimpleGet(TestProxy.java:107) Can it be that the proxy uses some 1.4 specific methods? Oleg -Original Message- From: Ortwin Glück [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 13:41 To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: Odi, TestProxy#testSimpleGet and TestProxy#testAuthGet fail on me when Tomcat is running locally and 'httpclient.test.localPort' system property is not set (which is quite often the case with me). Can we pick just any other less common number per default? 8088? 8880? Oleg Ah I guess there is a misunderstanding. The proxy test currently runs against the Webapp! Only the proxy is local but the final request goes to the webapp. Just make sure there is something on localhost:8080/. Maybe the Get should use a simple server as well instead of the webapp. Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- _ NOSE applied intelligence ag ortwin glück [www] http://www.nose.ch software engineer [email] [EMAIL PROTECTED] hardturmstrasse 171 [pgp key] 0x81CF3416 8005 zürich [office] +41-1-277 57 35 switzerland [fax] +41-1-277 57 12 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: What's up, folks? I have never seen HttpClient mailing list so quiet for so long. My excuse: I had a great time and lots of party in Zurich and I made a short trip to Barcelona yesterday - thanks to EasyJet :-) My proxy work should continue this week and I will get some patch ready by the beginning of next week. Cheers Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Hi Odi Been to Barcelona? Lucky you. It is a wonderful place to visit, even shortly. I am looking forward to getting my hands on your proxy patch Cheers Oleg -Original Message- From: Ortwin Glück [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:15 To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: What's up, folks? I have never seen HttpClient mailing list so quiet for so long. My excuse: I had a great time and lots of party in Zurich and I made a short trip to Barcelona yesterday - thanks to EasyJet :-) My proxy work should continue this week and I will get some patch ready by the beginning of next week. Cheers Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
What's up, folks? I have never seen HttpClient mailing list so quiet for so long. The last week was REALLY rough. I had some really miserable time at work. But with my project (the one that helps pay my bills) finally back on track, I can finally turn my attention to HttpClient development. As of tomorrow patches should start trickling in again. Oleg On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 20:34, Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: I agree. I'll try to come up with another try within a few days (most likely tomorrow) Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Hi Oleg, Yes, it was pretty quiet this last week. My reason, and probably that of others in the US, is that Thursday was Thanksgiving. Most businesses are closed the Thursday and Friday of Thanksgiving, and many people travel. I was fortunate enough to avoid the traveling masses but was entertaining visiting family. Things should be back to normal for me this week. Hopefully we can get this auth/proxy thing taken care of in the next few days. I look forward to the incoming flood of patches:) Mike Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: What's up, folks? I have never seen HttpClient mailing list so quiet for so long. The last week was REALLY rough. I had some really miserable time at work. But with my project (the one that helps pay my bills) finally back on track, I can finally turn my attention to HttpClient development. As of tomorrow patches should start trickling in again. Oleg On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 20:34, Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: I agree. I'll try to come up with another try within a few days (most likely tomorrow) Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Oleg, You're discarding the possibility that HttpClient is approaching perfection, and doesn't need much in the way of email commentary, because it works so well. Ah, er, sorry, I just had to day-dream for a moment there. -Eric. Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: What's up, folks? I have never seen HttpClient mailing list so quiet for so long. The last week was REALLY rough. I had some really miserable time at work. But with my project (the one that helps pay my bills) finally back on track, I can finally turn my attention to HttpClient development. As of tomorrow patches should start trickling in again. Oleg On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 20:34, Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: I agree. I'll try to come up with another try within a few days (most likely tomorrow) Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed. However, that still poses the same problem: how do we tell NTLM
authentication from all others? I do not see a way around that ugly test for the
2.0 branch at least:
if (NTLM.equalsIgnoreCase(authscheme.getSchemeName())) {
// clean up
}
As far as HEAD CVS goes, there are more elegant solutions, which would require
AuthScheme interface extension, though.
What are your thoughts?
Hi Oleg,
In HEAD I agree that we have better options. Most likely we will need
to extend AuthScheme as you mention to include a flag for
connection/request based authentication.
As far as 2.0 goes, I think that testing for NTLM is acceptable for now,
but I think the patch as it is will not handle all cases. In particular
I think NTLM proxy and Basic host will fail. This is because on the
fourth request, when the proxy has authenticated,
authscheme.getSchemeName() will return BASIC, and the NTLM header will
not be removed. The NTLM headers should only have a lifetime of a
single request, we need some way to remove them every time. We may have
to just explicitly remove any NTLM Proxy-Authentication or
Authentication headers on every request.
Mike
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Michael Becke wrote: Odi, Eric, I think a combination of these techniques would be great. One level to handle the socket management(as Odi outlined) and another to handle the content creation/validation (Eric's idea). These two methods in tandem should be sufficient to mimic any combination of servers/configurations. Mike I will still use real Sockets. Mimicking a socket is just too an unreal test. I will take Chris Kohlschütters Code as a starting point. I would also love to have a test suite running against a local Tomcat SSL connector. But for the moment the proxy implementation will eat up all my free time... Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
On Monday 17 November 2003 20:33, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: [Disregard my previous post. I responded to a wrong message by mistake] Odi, That would be REALLY cool! A simple authenticating proxy (or a proxy that could effectively 'fake' popular authentication schemes) would be a very much appreciated contribution. By the way, have a look at the Christian Kohlschütter's SimpleHttpServer: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=9066 I think that can be a good starting point for a better framework than SimpleHttpconnection. Please have a look at the latest version (see http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=9093 ). It is more abstract than the BadHTTPServer example for Bug 24560 and truly test independent. Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Christian Kohlschütter wrote: Please have a look at the latest version (see http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=9093 ). It is more abstract than the BadHTTPServer example for Bug 24560 and truly test independent. What sort of file is that? It seems binary... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 11:26, Ortwin Glück wrote: Christian Kohlschütter wrote: Please have a look at the latest version (see http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=9093 ). It is more abstract than the BadHTTPServer example for Bug 24560 and truly test independent. What sort of file is that? It seems binary... tar.gz Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Christian Kohlschütter wrote: On Tuesday 18 November 2003 11:26, Ortwin Glück wrote: Christian Kohlschütter wrote: Please have a look at the latest version (see http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=9093 ). It is more abstract than the BadHTTPServer example for Bug 24560 and truly test independent. What sort of file is that? It seems binary... tar.gz Thanks. I am gonna check your server package in in a minute. Please confirm that the code in attachment 9093 is meant to be published under the Apache License and is not copyright by any third party. I will then include the Apache License. Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 11:53, Ortwin Glück wrote: Christian Kohlschütter wrote: On Tuesday 18 November 2003 11:26, Ortwin Glück wrote: Christian Kohlschütter wrote: Please have a look at the latest version (see http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=9093 ). It is more abstract than the BadHTTPServer example for Bug 24560 and truly test independent. What sort of file is that? It seems binary... tar.gz Thanks. I am gonna check your server package in in a minute. Please confirm that the code in attachment 9093 is meant to be published under the Apache License and is not copyright by any third party. I will then include the Apache License. Odi I own the copyright for this code and I am willing to contribute / publish it under the conditions of the Apache License. Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Christian Kohlschütter wrote: I own the copyright for this code and I am willing to contribute / publish it under the conditions of the Apache License. Thanks a lot! I will check it in on the 2.0 branch since it is related to a 2.0 bug. As soon as it is ready we can promote it to CVS HEAD. Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oleg, I agree, our lack of auth/proxy tests is a continuous source of problems. One of our goals for 2.1 should be an effective method for testing all of the various combinations of proxy, authentication and SSL. Ideally it would be best to make this setup as simple as possible. Do you have any thoughts about how we can best accomplish this? Mike The various authentication methods should be tested against servlets in the Test-Webapp. As to proxies, we must implement a couple of tiny local servers running on different ports. Like: TCP 81: Proxy TCP 82: SSL Proxy Those servers should be started and stopped by the test fixtures (setup / teardown). The servers must be configurable as to which authentication method they use. This will also ensure quality of the various authentication methods, as currently their test cases are somewhat minimalistic. I'd love to hack up some code for the server side this week. Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
My take is slightly different (and I wish I had time to implement it) Start by virtualizing the access to the connection, and then, rather than having multiple servers, just have different implementations of a virtualized socket interface, for example. Then see to writing test cases that look something like this: # This marks what the server is supposed to receive, note that this is not # literally what is received, because headers might be sent in a different order # for example. GET /foo HTTP/1.1 @Host: http://localhost:8080 @Content-Length: 30 @End-Headers # Note that on content lines, the CRLF (or just LF) should be # discarded. Instead, CRLF pairs should be explicitly encoded, perhaps # with %CRLF%? Content should (must?) allow substitutions, for example # multi-part boundaries. Perhaps do substitution with something like # %BOUNDARY% @Content: Content goes here # the following would wait for three seconds before sending more # content... @Wait: 3000 @Content: Yet more content here... HTTP/1.1 # Note, here since the test case knows the response it is supposed to # send, it can (by and large) simply send it. @Content: . and so on I spend a lot of time working with XML, so I thought about doing some sort of test-framework like the above using XML instead. which would get rid of some of the bizarre syntax that I suggest above, but I'm not sure whether that makes sense in the context of HttpClient. My idea would be to take cases where we want to talk to actual servers, and replace them with test cases like the above, wherein we could mimick (or exactly duplicate) the odd behavior of various servers. Hopefully this gives someone else an idea -Eric. Ortwin Gluck wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oleg, I agree, our lack of auth/proxy tests is a continuous source of problems. One of our goals for 2.1 should be an effective method for testing all of the various combinations of proxy, authentication and SSL. Ideally it would be best to make this setup as simple as possible. Do you have any thoughts about how we can best accomplish this? Mike The various authentication methods should be tested against servlets in the Test-Webapp. As to proxies, we must implement a couple of tiny local servers running on different ports. Like: TCP 81: Proxy TCP 82: SSL Proxy Those servers should be started and stopped by the test fixtures (setup / teardown). The servers must be configurable as to which authentication method they use. This will also ensure quality of the various authentication methods, as currently their test cases are somewhat minimalistic. I'd love to hack up some code for the server side this week. Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Eric Johnson wrote: My take is slightly different (and I wish I had time to implement it) Start by virtualizing the access to the connection, and then, rather than having multiple servers, just have different implementations of a virtualized socket interface, for example. Eric, we can easily implement that by writing a special connection manager or socket factory. No need to introduce addition abstraction here. Socket is already a nice interface :-) Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24352] - NLTM Proxy and basic host authorization
Odi, Eric, I think a combination of these techniques would be great. One level to handle the socket management(as Odi outlined) and another to handle the content creation/validation (Eric's idea). These two methods in tandem should be sufficient to mimic any combination of servers/configurations. Mike On Nov 17, 2003, at 9:50 AM, Ortwin Glück wrote: Eric Johnson wrote: My take is slightly different (and I wish I had time to implement it) Start by virtualizing the access to the connection, and then, rather than having multiple servers, just have different implementations of a virtualized socket interface, for example. Eric, we can easily implement that by writing a special connection manager or socket factory. No need to introduce addition abstraction here. Socket is already a nice interface :-) Odi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
