Hi Martin, hi everybody, I'm a Cactus newbee too, and I'm having kind of the same problems. I'd like to tests my EJBs.
Like Martin, I can only tests EJBs which are visible to the servlet container, and my Entity Beans are definitly not visible. This is not a major problem, my logic is in the Session Beans and they're the ones I'd like to test. However, they're protected by a lot of different security roles, and I find it very difficult to test them from Cactus. Implementing form-based authentication in Cactus would help (I see that is being worked on in the CVS tree), however it would not solve all my problems. So I'm toying with one idea : Why not make a Session Bean, which would run as "root" (a unix-like "root" role should exist), and which would inherit from junit.framework.TestCase? It's just an idea, has anybody done something like that before?? Julien Dubois. On Tuesday 24 June 2003 19:56, Bayly, Martin wrote: > Hi > > We're looking into using Cactus to improve integration unit testing. We're > planning on using Cactus primarily for testing our ejb interfaces, but > ideally we'd like to use it for server side testing of lower level classes > in the ejb implementations e.g. data access classes for example. > > This raises the issue of visibility of those classes to the web tier where > the cactus unit tests run. Currently, our deployed build is pretty loose > and everything can see pretty much everything else. However, we're in the > process of tightening this up with the intention being that the web tier > will only be able to see the ejb interfaces and the classes exposed by > those interfaces. However, it won't 'conceptually' be able to see ejb > implementation details. > > To a certain extent this depends on the class loading scheme used by the > container - we're currently using weblogic 6 and in the current weblogic > class loading scheme the web app can see all the classes in the ejb, as all > ejbs are loaded using a single class loader, and the web app is loaded as a > child class loader of the ejb class loader. > > However, we don't particularly want to be tied to the current weblogic > scheme. > > I was just wondering if other people have come across this issue and how > have they tackled it. Does it mean we're going to have to deploy with a > different structure for running server unit tests? I was kind of hoping > the only difference in our test/production build would be the deployed test > cases and cactus jars. > > Cheers, > Martin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
