On 3/3/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<...snip...>
>> I believe this approach may be applied for most of cases and allow us to
>> eliminate dependency on an external server.
>
>And give us tight control to be able to mimic misbehavior on the server
>side to be sure that the librar
Yes, Jetty is a good option :-)
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Stepan Mishura wrote:
Tim, George, I'd like to resume this topic
Thanks for posting to the dev list :)
There is no way to force a server to send you a chunked response using
reg
Stepan Mishura wrote:
Tim, George, I'd like to resume this topic
Thanks for posting to the dev list :)
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 p
Tim, George, I'd like to resume this topic
>
>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.
>
I
I agree -- thanks for the patch Stepan.
Regards,
Tim
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> Tim,
>
> <..snip..>
>> I agree that the tests in HARMONY-71 only need something to accept their
>> connection, but I was simply pointing out that there will be a local
>> server we can use if that contribution is accep
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
George Harley wrote:
What is the problem with using httpd to test Harmony ?
It's a rather large external dependency. Reminds me of the time we
got the TCK for JavaMail (a story in itself) and the only practical
wa
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Mark Hindess wrote:
But this doesn't mean George is wrong! Because *if* there was a
publically accessible Internet server that already had Apache httpd,
twoftpd (my favourite ftp server this week), Dante socks, etc, then
the scenario I like to optimise becomes possi
Tim,
<..snip..>
> I agree that the tests in HARMONY-71 only need something to accept their
> connection, but I was simply pointing out that there will be a local
> server we can use if that contribution is accepted into the project, so
> probably not worth writing another.
I've developed a pro
Tim Ellison wrote:
I'd echo those sentiments.
Geir: how close are you to putting HARMONY-57 to the vote?
I think I have everything, but fear the JIRA! Fear the JIRA! :)
Regards,
Tim
George Harley wrote:
Just want to emphasise something that has possibly got lost in this
thread. To dat
Tim Ellison wrote:
.
While I don't object to having such publically accessible services
(though I would understand if ASF did), that cannot be the required
set-up for the tests.
We need to maintain the ability to test locally (can you imagine Geir's
Skyfone charges otherwise ;-) )
ROTFL. I
Mark Hindess wrote:
But this doesn't mean George is wrong! Because *if* there was a
publically accessible Internet server that already had Apache httpd,
twoftpd (my favourite ftp server this week), Dante socks, etc, then
the scenario I like to optimise becomes possible.
And doesn't work of
George Harley wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
George Harley wrote:
What is the problem with using httpd to test Harmony ?
It's a rather large external dependency. Reminds me of the time we
got the TCK for JavaMail (a story in itself) and the only practical
way to use it was to get Sun
Mark Hindess wrote:
> I think it might help this disagreement if we step back and decide
> what scenarios for running tests we are trying to optimise.
>
> Personally, whenever I write tests I'm doing it to optimise the
> scenario where a new users comes to the project and does:
>
> 1$ svn co ...
This sounds like the discussion we had a while ago along the lines of
'what is a reasonable environment we should expect developers/testers to
set-up locally, and what should be stubbed in the test suite itself.'
i.e. which of the following are reasonable items to put in the readme?
go and set-up
I'd echo those sentiments.
Geir: how close are you to putting HARMONY-57 to the vote?
Regards,
Tim
George Harley wrote:
> Just want to emphasise something that has possibly got lost in this
> thread. To date, all of the discussion on this topic seems to have been
> based on "eye balling" of the
Just want to emphasise something that has possibly got lost in this
thread. To date, all of the discussion on this topic seems to have been
based on "eye balling" of the code in issue HARMONY-57. It would almost
certainly help move things forward if people were to start actually
running the tes
Mark Hindess wrote:
I think it might help this disagreement if we step back and decide
what scenarios for running tests we are trying to optimise.
Disagreement ? What ? On this mailing list ? :-)
Personally, whenever I write tests I'm doing it to optimise the
scenario where a new users come
Stepan Mishura wrote:
I feel that I need to study more details about net testing. Also to
made discussion more concrete and constructive I'll to try to provide
'a proof of concept'. I believe that this won't be a wasted effort
and it won't take too much time. I'm going to select a number of
'
I think it might help this disagreement if we step back and decide
what scenarios for running tests we are trying to optimise.
Personally, whenever I write tests I'm doing it to optimise the
scenario where a new users comes to the project and does:
1$ svn co ... classlib # or wget/tar if you pref
I feel that I need to study more details about net testing. Also to made
discussion more concrete and constructive I'll to try to provide 'a proof of
concept'. I believe that this won't be a wasted effort and it won't take
too much time. I'm going to select a number of 'common testing scenarios',
Tim Ellison wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
So, does this summarize to :
1) We need a new server or we should enahnce the current one?
2) We need instructions on how to do this.
?
(I hope we don't
George Harley wrote:
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>>
>> George Harley wrote:
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
So, does this summarize to :
1) We need a new server or we should enahnce the current one?
2) We need instructions on how to do this.
?
(I hope
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
So, does this summarize to :
1) We need a new server or we should enahnce the current one?
2) We need instructions on how to do this.
?
(I hope we don't need httpd to test Harmony...)
Could you remind me what the "c
George Harley wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
So, does this summarize to :
1) We need a new server or we should enahnce the current one?
2) We need instructions on how to do this.
?
(I hope we don't need httpd to test Harmony...)
Could you remind me what the "current one" is ?
The one
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
So, does this summarize to :
1) We need a new server or we should enahnce the current one?
2) We need instructions on how to do this.
?
(I hope we don't need httpd to test Harmony...)
Could you remind me what the "current one" is ?
What is the problem with using ht
So, does this summarize to :
1) We need a new server or we should enahnce the current one?
2) We need instructions on how to do this.
?
(I hope we don't need httpd to test Harmony...)
Stepan Mishura wrote:
Hi Richard,
Yes, I'm always for simplifying testing routine. And creating a detail g
Hi,
I've been out of the office for a few days (postcards arriving any day
now :-)) and have just started catching up with what has been going on
round here so apologies for not responding on this topic sooner.
Comments inlined below.
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
Stepan Mishura wrote:
Hi R
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Stepan Mishura wrote:
>>> I glanced through a local server code from HARMONY-57 contribution
>> without
>>> looking into implementation details and ... this made me think. I catch
>> hold
>>> of the following:
>>> 1) T
Hi Richard,
Yes, I'm always for simplifying testing routine. And creating a detail guide
for configuring some testing server is a possible way to do it. However I'd
prefer to try to develop a simple local test server that is easy to
configure. I believe that it will cover most of cases.
And I ass
On 2/21/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > I glanced through a local server code from HARMONY-57 contribution
> without
> > looking into implementation details and ... this made me think. I catch
> hold
> > of the following:
> > 1) The server contains some testi
Richard Liang wrote:
Dears,
Agree that server (maybe not local) is required for some sophisticated
test cases. To make thing simply, we may provide more detail guide
(step-by-step) on how to setup/configure a typical testing server. Or
shall we setup a test server and allow user to share our
Dears,
Agree that server (maybe not local) is required for some sophisticated
test cases. To make thing simply, we may provide more detail guide
(step-by-step) on how to setup/configure a typical testing server. Or
shall we setup a test server and allow user to share our testing server?
Richa
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> I glanced through a local server code from HARMONY-57 contribution without
> looking into implementation details and ... this made me think. I catch hold
> of the following:
> 1) The server contains some testing code that looks not good for me
Care to explain?
> 2) It is n
I glanced through a local server code from HARMONY-57 contribution without
looking into implementation details and ... this made me think. I catch hold
of the following:
1) The server contains some testing code that looks not good for me
2) It is not as simple as I expected - my impression was that
34 matches
Mail list logo
