It is! And it is documented at http://jakarta.apache.org/cactus/writing/howto_ejb.html
In the future there'll be EJB redirectors. Thanks -Vincent > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajagopal. V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 14 September 2003 20:50 > To: Cactus Users List > Subject: Re: Server Side Testing ejb implementation code > > Wouldnt it be easy to use JUnit Test Cases (like a > standalone client application) that calls session > ejbs. > You can even write these test cases extending from > Struts Test Case, something like > public class TestBlah extends ServletTestCase { > public void testAAA() { > //Code to Test Session EJB Method AAA > } > ..... > } > > -Raj > > --- Julien Dubois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > > > I had a look at the "Cactus goals" page, and I've > > got some comments. > > > > 1. From my point of view, Cactus seems to be great > > for testing the > > presentation layer of a J2EE application (servlets, > > JSPs, taglibs...). > > But the thing that really interests me is Session > > EJB testing, as : > > > > - I'm using Struts. My JSPs are pretty simple > > (thanks Tiles & the several > > third-party taglibs), and completly dumb (they just > > do presentation, no > > logic). I don't need to write servlets or taglibs. > > > > - For the persistance layer I trust my app server > > (for entity beans) or > > Hibernate. > > > > So as long as Session EJBs testing is not easy to > > do, I don't have much use > > for Cactus. > > > > 2. Some of my applications do not have a > > presentation layer. Testing them with > > Cactus would be very difficult. > > > > 3. Mock objects are less and less useful. Using mock > > objects for testing > > servlets could be interesing, but a complete app > > server is something a lot > > more complicated. It's so easy to deploy your EAR in > > a real app server, why > > bother using mock objects?? > > > > 4. I think using DbUnit with Cactus makes a lot of > > sense. > > a. Because it is difficult to get a database in a > > known state by just using > > the EJBs. > > b. Because sometimes the only way to validate a > > Session bean method is to have > > a look inside the database tables. > > > > Just my 0.02 Euros. > > > > Julien. > > > > Le Dimanche 14 Septembre 2003 14:14, Vincent Massol > > a �crit : > > > Hi Julien, > > > > > > Yes, ATM, there is a limitation in Cactus when it > > comes to testing EJBs. > > > As we don't have an EJB redirector yet, we have to > > go through the > > > remote/local interface. This is only the case for > > EJB. For all other > > > types of J2EE components it works fine. > > > > > > Security roles should not be an issue. You have to > > decide what kind of > > > test you want (functional or unit test). If you > > want to perform unit > > > testing, then you want to test the fine-grained > > details of the code > > > implementation. Simply do not use security in your > > deployment > > > descriptors for cactus tests for example. Or > > create a valid EJB security > > > context before calling the EJB to test. > > > > > > WRT form-based authentication, it is already > > implemented. > > > > > > Your "idea" of the "root" Session Bean is exactly > > what is planned! :-) > > > See the todo page on the Cactus web site. > > > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Julien Dubois > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 24 June 2003 23:09 > > > > To: Cactus Users List > > > > Subject: Re: Server Side Testing ejb > > implementation code > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
