Yup, Jira + pull request is a good start

Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
[email protected]
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jakub Korab <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Just taking a look through the source tree, given that all the tests are
> in activemq-unit-tests, it doesn't make a structural difference. Keeping it
> external might make sense as it would be an optional extra.
>
> I also have a test DSL as a sub-project of my source tree that uses JUnit
> 4.11 (same version as used by ActiveMQ) @Rule annotations, which get the
> test runner to manage the lifecycle of the DSL-defined broker (as opposed
> to writing the same setUp() and tearDown() methods all the time). It allows
> lookups of transport connector URIs for easy ConnectionFactory
> instantiation, and also does transparent network proxying via a SocketProxy.
>
> |public class MyEmbeddedBrokerTest {
>     @Rule
>     public ProxiedBrokerResource broker = new BrokerResource(
>             ActiveMQBrokers.broker("embeddedBroker").useJmx(false)
> .persistent(false)
>                 .transportConnectors()
>                     .transportConnector("openwire", "tcp://0.0.0.0:61616
> ").end()
>                     .transportConnector("stomp", "stomp://0.0.0.0:61618
> ").end()
>                 .end())
>             .withProxied("openwire").port(10000); // port to be proxied
> is looked up by name
>             // you can define multiple proxies for the one broker!
>
>     @Test
>     public void testNetworkOutages() {
>         ConnectionFactory cf =
>             new ActiveMQConnectionFactory(
>                 "failover:(" + broker.getTcpConnectionUri("openwire") +
> ")"); // returns proxied port 10000
>         // ...
>         SocketProxy socketProxy = broker.getProxy("openwire");
>         socketProxy.close(); // network goes down
>         // ...
>         socketProxy.reopen(); // network comes back up
>     }
> }|
>
>
> I would like to drop it in to an activemq-test-dsl project - that would
> allow its use in unit tests, as well as by anyone external who would like
> to make use of it. Does that sound good?
>
> I think that the general consensus is to go ahead. How do I go about doing
> this? Should I log in in Jira, and issue a pull request from a git branch?
>
> Jakub
>
>
> On 17/03/15 10:30, Dejan Bosanac wrote:
>
>> That’s fine by me as well. It’s just that I don’t see it as much of a
>> burden on activemq-broker. It really is just a couple of classes in it’s
>> own package which can be used to configure and run the broker from Java.
>> If
>> it’s a separate module, than we need to make sure we include it
>> activemq-all, activemq-osgi, etc, and add it as a dependency to all
>> modules
>> that want to use it for testing. So in the end it will be more
>> complicated.
>> But whatever folks prefer is fine by me.
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Dejan Bosanac
>> ----------------------
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> [email protected]
>> Twitter: @dejanb
>> Blog: http://sensatic.net
>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  How about a separate jar that could be used in conjunction with
>>> activemq-broker? In time start moving 'nice to have' things from
>>> activemq-broker into this other jar?
>>>
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/17/2015 05:57 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:
>>>
>>>  IMHO it should be enough to just put these classes in the new package
>>>> (something like org.apache.activemq.broker.dsl) inside the
>>>> activemq-broker
>>>> module.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> --
>>>> Dejan Bosanac
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> Twitter: @dejanb
>>>> Blog: http://sensatic.net
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:26 AM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   That's an interesting use-case, and I see the value there.
>>>>
>>>>> Would this be a new, separate artifact or a change to an existing one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Art
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. apologies for confusion on my earlier post - using nabble's "raw"
>>>>> content did indeed cause the content of the post to get stripped in
>>>>> email
>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-DSLs-
>>>>> tp4693171p4693332.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

Reply via email to