Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Patch uploaded, Harmony-1501. :-) On 9/19/06, Stepan Mishura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/19/06, Richard Liang wrote: On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Andrew Zhang wrote: On 9/18/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if no one objects. Here are my suggestions: Great :-) 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty version. +1 2. location to put jetty jars: support module. Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn? Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder? Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars. Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty. Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar? I'd use it as 'support.jar' - so it is downloaded to 'depends', copied by the build to 'deploy/build/test' and added as external jar in Eclipse. Thanks, Stepan. 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-) Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we reach an agreement. Best regards, Andrew [1] jetty-based test example: setUp code: port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort(); Server server = new Server(port); ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler(); resource_handler.setResourceBase(somewhere); server.setHandler(resource_handler); server.start(); tearDown code: server.stop(); -- Richard Liang China 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On 9/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:13 AM, Richard Liang wrote: On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Zhang wrote: On 9/18/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn? Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder? Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars. Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty. Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar? I dunno, but I don't think that would be a reason to stuff jetty.jar in svn. I agree that we should not put jetty into Harony svn. geir - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Richard Liang China 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]
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On 9/19/06, Stepan Mishura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/19/06, Richard Liang wrote: On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Andrew Zhang wrote: On 9/18/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if no one objects. Here are my suggestions: Great :-) 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty version. +1 2. location to put jetty jars: support module. Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn? Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder? Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars. Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty. Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar? I'd use it as 'support.jar' - so it is downloaded to 'depends', copied by the build to 'deploy/build/test' and added as external jar in Eclipse. Yes. It's reasonable. Let's have a try ;-) Andrew? Thanks, Stepan. 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-) Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we reach an agreement. Best regards, Andrew [1] jetty-based test example: setUp code: port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort(); Server server = new Server(port); ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler(); resource_handler.setResourceBase(somewhere); server.setHandler(resource_handler); server.start(); tearDown code: server.stop(); -- Richard Liang China 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] -- Richard Liang China 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]
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On 9/20/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/19/06, Stepan Mishura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/19/06, Richard Liang wrote: On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Andrew Zhang wrote: On 9/18/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if no one objects. Here are my suggestions: Great :-) 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty version. +1 2. location to put jetty jars: support module. Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn? Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder? Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars. Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty. Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar? I'd use it as 'support.jar' - so it is downloaded to 'depends', copied by the build to 'deploy/build/test' and added as external jar in Eclipse. Yes. It's reasonable. Let's have a try ;-) Andrew? Step 1, Harmony-1501, patch uploaded. :-) Thanks, Stepan. 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-) Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we reach an agreement. Best regards, Andrew [1] jetty-based test example: setUp code: port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort(); Server server = new Server(port); ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler(); resource_handler.setResourceBase(somewhere); server.setHandler(resource_handler); server.start(); tearDown code: server.stop(); -- Richard Liang China 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] -- Richard Liang China 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Zhang wrote: On 9/18/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if no one objects. Here are my suggestions: Great :-) 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty version. +1 2. location to put jetty jars: support module. Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn? Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder? Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars. Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty. Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar? 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-) Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we reach an agreement. Best regards, Andrew [1] jetty-based test example: setUp code: port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort(); Server server = new Server(port); ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler(); resource_handler.setResourceBase(somewhere); server.setHandler(resource_handler); server.start(); tearDown code: server.stop(); -- Richard Liang China 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] - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Richard Liang China 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]
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:13 AM, Richard Liang wrote: On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Zhang wrote: On 9/18/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn? Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder? Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars. Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty. Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar? I dunno, but I don't think that would be a reason to stuff jetty.jar in svn. geir - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On 9/19/06, Richard Liang wrote: On 9/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Andrew Zhang wrote: On 9/18/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if no one objects. Here are my suggestions: Great :-) 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty version. +1 2. location to put jetty jars: support module. Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn? Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder? Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars. Yes. It's good make jetty as a depends, and we could add jetty.jar into their build scripts if some modules (e.g., luni) require jetty. Just thinking about another question, how shall we handle the .classpath of luni in Eclipse? Use external jar? I'd use it as 'support.jar' - so it is downloaded to 'depends', copied by the build to 'deploy/build/test' and added as external jar in Eclipse. Thanks, Stepan. 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-) Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we reach an agreement. Best regards, Andrew [1] jetty-based test example: setUp code: port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort(); Server server = new Server(port); ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler(); resource_handler.setResourceBase(somewhere); server.setHandler(resource_handler); server.start(); tearDown code: server.stop(); -- Richard Liang China 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]
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Hi, It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if no one objects. Here are my suggestions: 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty version. 2. location to put jetty jars: support module. 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-) Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we reach an agreement. Best regards, Andrew [1] jetty-based test example: setUp code: port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort(); Server server = new Server(port); ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler(); resource_handler.setResourceBase(somewhere); server.setHandler(resource_handler); server.start(); tearDown code: server.stop();
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if no one objects. Here are my suggestions: Great :-) 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty version. +1 2. location to put jetty jars: support module. Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn? 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-) Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we reach an agreement. Best regards, Andrew [1] jetty-based test example: setUp code: port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort(); Server server = new Server(port); ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler(); resource_handler.setResourceBase(somewhere); server.setHandler(resource_handler); server.start(); tearDown code: server.stop(); -- Richard Liang China 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]
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On 9/18/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if no one objects. Here are my suggestions: Great :-) 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty version. +1 2. location to put jetty jars: support module. Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn? Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder? 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-) Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we reach an agreement. Best regards, Andrew [1] jetty-based test example: setUp code: port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort(); Server server = new Server(port); ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler(); resource_handler.setResourceBase(somewhere); server.setHandler(resource_handler); server.start(); tearDown code: server.stop(); -- Richard Liang China 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Andrew Zhang wrote: On 9/18/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/18/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It's me again. Seems no big progress on jetty. I'd like to take the job if no one objects. Here are my suggestions: Great :-) 1. jetty version: I suggest that Harmony adopt jetty 6. Because many 5.xAPIs are deprecated in jetty 6, we'd better follow latest jetty version. +1 2. location to put jetty jars: support module. Do you mean we will check the jetty jars into Harmony svn? Yes. Is it OK? Or put the jar in depends folder? Just make it a depends. We should avoid checking in jars. 3. how to write jetty test? I suggest that we could start jetty in any test if necessary. If we found there are heavy code duplicates, we could extract them as utility methods in support module. So far, I'd like to write jetty test directly in each module, because the code is rather simple, only a few lines.[1] It's also easy to write user-customized handler for negative tests. Let's make it work, and then make it better. :-) Any suggestions/comments/objections? I volunteer to upload patches when we reach an agreement. Best regards, Andrew [1] jetty-based test example: setUp code: port = Support_PortManager.getNextPort(); Server server = new Server(port); ResourceHandler resource_handler=new ResourceHandler(); resource_handler.setResourceBase(somewhere); server.setHandler(resource_handler); server.start(); tearDown code: server.stop(); -- Richard Liang China 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] - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
2006/8/17, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Andrew Zhang wrote: Hi folks, I'd like to say something more about jetty integration. We should reach an agreement on how to integrate/use jetty in Harmony. There are some concerns I can image now: 1. Where to put jetty? support or luni module or somewhere else? It depends on question 2. How about putting jetty into depends? +1 Thanks, Mikhail 2. How to use jetty? How many jetty instances are there? Singleton or multiple instances? In other word, shall we start only one jetty server at the beginning before running all tests? or will we start/destroy embedded jetty server at will in any test case? Seems jetty supports both options. I agree. We still shall be cautious about jetty instances though it's light-weighted. IMHO, for most test cases, one global jetty instance is enough. But maybe there are some cases which need separate instances. Let's see comments from others :-) 3. How to write jetty based test?. Multi-thread network test always is a problem to us. I found it's also hard to be theoretically. Yes. According to the description above, I suggest put jetty in support module, and encapsulate a class (i.e Support_JettyServer) with some public methods for test writing (i.e getJettyPort(), setHandler(), set...). The advantage of this approach hides all jetty details in support. Once jetty support class is ready, all modules can write http tests in the same way. Any suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks! On 8/1/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 jettyserver 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 jettyserver. I'm not against 'jetty based tests' but I'd prefer
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On 8/17/06, Andrew Zhang wrote: Hi folks, I'd like to say something more about jetty integration. We should reach an agreement on how to integrate/use jetty in Harmony. There are some concerns I can image now: 1. Where to put jetty? support or luni module or somewhere else? It depends on question 2. +1 for support 2. How to use jetty? How many jetty instances are there? Singleton or multiple instances? In other word, shall we start only one jetty server at the beginning before running all tests? or will we start/destroy embedded jetty server at will in any test case? Seems jetty supports both options. It should be possibile for a test dynamically configure testing server (remember my favorite scenario with sending chunked response?). So a test should be able to stat jetty. 3. How to write jetty based test?. Multi-thread network test always is a problem to us. I found it's also hard to be theoretically. I've expected that you know :-) Are there any guidelines? Thanks, Stepan. According to the description above, I suggest put jetty in support module, and encapsulate a class (i.e Support_JettyServer) with some public methods for test writing (i.e getJettyPort(), setHandler(), set...). The advantage of this approach hides all jetty details in support. Once jetty support class is ready, all modules can write http tests in the same way. Any suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks! On 8/1/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 jettyserver 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 jettyserver. I'm not against 'jetty based tests' but I'd prefer to separate such tests. Thanks, Stepan. Hi Stepan, Just seen this
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On 8/17/06, Stepan Mishura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/17/06, Andrew Zhang wrote: Hi folks, I'd like to say something more about jetty integration. We should reach an agreement on how to integrate/use jetty in Harmony. There are some concerns I can image now: 1. Where to put jetty? support or luni module or somewhere else? It depends on question 2. +1 for support 2. How to use jetty? How many jetty instances are there? Singleton or multiple instances? In other word, shall we start only one jetty server at the beginning before running all tests? or will we start/destroy embedded jetty server at will in any test case? Seems jetty supports both options. It should be possibile for a test dynamically configure testing server (remember my favorite scenario with sending chunked response?). So a test should be able to stat jetty. Yes, I remember. :) Overriding AbstractHttpHandler should work for your scenario. That's why I mentioned setHandler in the Support_JettyServer API. Of course, if we find something that can only be done by multiple jetty instances, then I would agree that a test should be able to start jetty. Otherwise, I'll vote for single jetty instance, for performance, and easy maintenance consideration. 3. How to write jetty based test?. Multi-thread network test always is a problem to us. I found it's also hard to be theoretically. I've expected that you know :-) Are there any guidelines? Not guidelines but some ideas. :) It's almost impossible to write theoretically stable jetty test. (correct me if I'm wrong.) Because server.accept and client.connect/read are both blocking operation so synchronization(wait/notify/lock) doesn't work here. But it's possible to write pratically stable tests. If there's only one jetty instance which is started at the begining, things are simple. Just start jetty, wait a little while (until we can connect to a sample page or be notified from jetty if there's any callback method in jetty), and run all tests. No thread race problem at all if we assume jetty really started and works well after a little while, and jetty thread can be scheduled normally by jvm. I think we have to assume something, and believe the tests are pratically stable, though not theoretically. Any fears for the potentially uncertain? :) Any suggestions/comments/objections? Thanks! Thanks, Stepan. According to the description above, I suggest put jetty in support module, and encapsulate a class (i.e Support_JettyServer) with some public methods for test writing (i.e getJettyPort(), setHandler(), set...). The advantage of this approach hides all jetty details in support. Once jetty support class is ready, all modules can write http tests in the same way. Any suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks! On 8/1/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Might be related to this topic: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1186 [classlib][nio] unable to Http connect to Jetty server on Harmony Thanks, Mikhail 2006/8/16, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Hi folks, I'd like to say something more about jetty integration. We should reach an agreement on how to integrate/use jetty in Harmony. There are some concerns I can image now: 1. Where to put jetty? support or luni module or somewhere else? It depends on question 2. 2. How to use jetty? How many jetty instances are there? Singleton or multiple instances? In other word, shall we start only one jetty server at the beginning before running all tests? or will we start/destroy embedded jetty server at will in any test case? Seems jetty supports both options. 3. How to write jetty based test?. Multi-thread network test always is a problem to us. I found it's also hard to be theoretically. According to the description above, I suggest put jetty in support module, and encapsulate a class (i.e Support_JettyServer) with some public methods for test writing (i.e getJettyPort(), setHandler(), set...). The advantage of this approach hides all jetty details in support. Once jetty support class is ready, all modules can write http tests in the same way. Any suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks! On 8/1/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 jettyserver 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 jettyserver. 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Andrew Zhang wrote: Hi folks, I'd like to say something more about jetty integration. We should reach an agreement on how to integrate/use jetty in Harmony. There are some concerns I can image now: 1. Where to put jetty? support or luni module or somewhere else? It depends on question 2. How about putting jetty into depends? 2. How to use jetty? How many jetty instances are there? Singleton or multiple instances? In other word, shall we start only one jetty server at the beginning before running all tests? or will we start/destroy embedded jetty server at will in any test case? Seems jetty supports both options. I agree. We still shall be cautious about jetty instances though it's light-weighted. IMHO, for most test cases, one global jetty instance is enough. But maybe there are some cases which need separate instances. Let's see comments from others :-) 3. How to write jetty based test?. Multi-thread network test always is a problem to us. I found it's also hard to be theoretically. Yes. According to the description above, I suggest put jetty in support module, and encapsulate a class (i.e Support_JettyServer) with some public methods for test writing (i.e getJettyPort(), setHandler(), set...). The advantage of this approach hides all jetty details in support. Once jetty support class is ready, all modules can write http tests in the same way. Any suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks! On 8/1/06, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 jettyserver 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 jettyserver. 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists 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, IMHO, we only need an embedded light-weighted server for unit testing purpose, which could be run in the same process of Harmony unit tests. As you know, Tomcat provides more powerful functionalities, we are just wondering how to use it. Do you have any suggestion? Thanks a lot. Best regards, Richard. 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
AFAIK embedding Tomcat is an easy task too. Examples: http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2002/04/03/tomcat.html?page=1 http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-5.0-doc/catalina/docs/api/org/apache/catalina/startup/Embedded.html but you have to add a lot of JAR files to make it work: - CATALINA_HOME/bin/bootstrap.jar - CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/catalina.jar - CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/servlet-cgi.jar - CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/servlets-common.jar - CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/servlets-default.jar - CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/servlets-invoker.jar - CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/servlets-manager.jar - CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/servlets-snoop.jar - CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/servlets-ssi.jar - CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/servlets-webdav.jar - CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/jakarta-regexp-1.2.jar - CATALINA_HOME/lib/naming-factory.jar - CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/crimson.jar - CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/jasper-compiler.jar - CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/jasper-runtime.jar - CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/jaxp.jar - CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/jndi.jar - CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/naming-common.jar - CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/naming-resources.jar - CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/servlet.jar - CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/tools.jar when Jetty is designed to be embedded easily. On 8/8/06, Alexei Zakharov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
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 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Hi Andrew, 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? No! This is why I have asked you :) Have you heard about Apache FTP server [1]? Just found this in Google. It has the right words in the description: The Apache FTP Server is a 100% pure Java FTP server. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ftpserver/ Regards, 2006/8/8, Andrew Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi Andrew, 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? No! This is why I have asked you :) Have you heard about Apache FTP server [1]? Just found this in Google. It has the right words in the description: The Apache FTP Server is a 100% pure Java FTP server. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ftpserver/ FYI, that project is dead and ready to be 'frozen' out of incubation. I completely agree that Jetty is a better choice than Tomcat in terms of testing because it has no dependencies on external packages but the servlet API (and even that dependency can be optional) [I'm talking about version 6.0] Tomcat was not designed with that kind of embeddability and lightweightness in mind. -- Stefano. - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
On 8/8/06, 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! Patches are welcome. :-) Thanks, Stepan. 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
Re: [test] Jetty integration progress ? (was Re: [classlib] jetty based tests)
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
