Hmm... Not sure where the problem is. What I can suggest is to verify the header is correctly set. You can do that by opening a telnet session to your server and typing the GET command. You will then be able to see the headers.
Alternatively you can probably use wget to peform the same thing. -Vincent > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicholas Lesiecki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 July 2003 09:18 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: Re: Moving UniqueId to the server side > > Hello developers, > > I attempted to implement the move of the uniqueID to the server side. > Naively, I attempted to set the generated results id as a header in the > response to the initial CALL_TEST service. Here is my code: > > (from AbstractWebTestCaller.java) > > private void addResultsIdHeaderToResponse(String theResultsId) > { > HttpServletResponse response = > this.webImplicitObjects.getHttpServletResponse(); > response.addHeader(HttpServiceDefinition.TEST_ID_PARAM, > theResultsId); > > } > > Unfortunately, when I try to read this value on the client, it comes up as > null. It seems that the connection does not register any headers as being > set. > > (From DefaultHttpClient:) > > HttpURLConnection connection = callRunTest(theRequest); > String resultsId = getResultsIdFromHeader(connection); > > GetResultsFromHeader expands to: > > private String getResultsIdFromHeader(HttpURLConnection theConnection) > { > String resultsId = > theConnection.getHeaderField(HttpServiceDefinition.TEST_ID_PARAM); > if (resultsId == null) > { > throw new IllegalStateException();//I always get this > } > return resultsId; > } > > I haven't worked much with headers, is either of these two code fragments > fundamentally flawed? > > > Cheers, > Nick > On 7/9/03 2:11 AM, "Christopher Lenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Lesiecki Nicholas wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> --- Christopher Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> On a related note, we are now pretty much in a feature freeze until we > >>> branch out a CACTUS_15_BRANCH for maintenance. That will be done as > soon > >>> as we release a beta of 1.5. Until then, we should not add the Test-ID > >>> functionality to CVS. We'll keep the already present UniqueGenerator, > >>> but I'd like to remove the code that adds it to the request etc. We > can > >>> add it back later, but it'll probably look completely different anyway > >>> if we implement it as a cookie generated on the server side. > >> > >> Ok, I can rip this all out if you like. It *will* look completely > different > >> once we move to the server. Again, I'd love for us to branch soon so I > can > >> continue the work. > > > > Yes, we're a couple of days away from a beta and the branch now. If you > > don't have time to remove the unique ID references, I can probably do it > > today or tomorrow. > > > >> Regarding testing the functionality: > >> > >>> I don't think we can do very much to really test this. We need to look > >>> good and hard at the algorithm :-) There is currently only one > potential > >>> situation where generated IDs might clash: when they are generated on > >>> the same machine (as identified by the IP-address) but on different > JVMs > >>> at the same time (System.currentTimeMillis() yields the same value). > >>> This is pretty unlikely, and I think that by putting the identity hash > >>> code of the test case instance into the mix, the resulting IDs should > >>> never clash. As I noted a week or so ago, RMI uses > >>> new Object().hashCode() > >>> to get a host/JVM unique ID. If that works, our algorithm should be > >>> pretty damn safe :-) > >> > >> I think all these problems will disappear once we hit the server. All I > >> think we'll have to do is synchronize on the application context: > >> > >> synchronized(application){ > >> count++; > >> } > >> > >> (where count is a static variable in some generator class.) > >> > >> That way each incoming test is guaranteed to have a different id with > >> respect to that application context. Since the server distributes the > IDs, > >> there would be no need to id the clients specifically. We could start > count > >> at System.currentTimeMillis() just to be on the safe side. > > > > Sounds good :-) > > > >> Of course, there may be problems with synching on the application > context. > > > > I have no idea about that... > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
