Hi Hao, Alper and Ranga! Welcome! That all sounds good to me. Longer term I think it would be good to start work on a Jetty equivalent of TomEE as well.
I'd definitely love to see some more work on the Arquillian side of things, I think it would be a great way to get involved with the project. I mentioned in a previous post that I've committed an adapter that boots an instance of TomEE embedded and deploys the app under test as well. Its not had much in the way of testing, so any usage and feedback would be most welcome. Moving the itests over to using Arquillian is a great idea. The adaptor is checked into the sandbox area: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/sandbox/arquillian-tomee/ I had a few thoughts on improving things with the adaptor: I think we need to improve the deployment mechanism - currently we drop the artifact to deploy in the webapps folder and poll a custom EJB to see when the app has been deployed. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it makes tests take longer to run than they need to. The sample test with source code currently takes about 17s on my machine with everything all downloaded and ready to go. When I saw the Arquillian demos at JAX London there was quite a focus on the speed tests run, and indeed OpenEJB seemed to compare very well with Glashfish embedded for pure EJB tests. The quicker we can get TomEE booted and the app deployed the better I think. I imagine switching to use the Deployer EJB might be better for this (does it block until deployment is complete?). It would be good if the interface for this was moved to a different module so we don't need to have openejb-core and its dependencies on the classpath to deploy an app. An alternative might be some kind of way to accept a ShrinkWrap archive directly in OpenEJB / TomEE - don't know how that might work, but might be an idea. A remote adapter would be useful as well - the other Arquillian adapters do that by having the remote adapter as a whole different adapter. We could add a switch to the current adapter to change between embedded and remote modes, or could have a separate module for the remote adaptor. The latter would probably be better so users can change what they are testing against by changing the Maven profile they are using. I did wonder whether we should get in touch with the JBoss guys regarding Arquillian I think it might be good to get it on their radar. Any thoughts? Jon On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:10 AM, David Blevins <[email protected]>wrote: > Sent a note out to the LA JavaUsers Group about two weeks ago to see if > anyone wanted to get together to do some hacking. Got three responses and > we all got together today to give them an intro to the project and > technology (hello Hao, Alper and Ranga!) > > So when asking myself "what does the project need", here are some things > that came to mind in no particular order. > > Servlet/EE Examples > CDI Examples > Bean Validation Examples > > Embedded TomEE Arquilian adapter > Standalone TomEE Arquillian adapter > > Servlet EE Tests > > CDI/TCK/TomEE Harness > BeanVal/TomEE harness > BeanVal/Embedded harness > > Document Examples > > Overall I was thinking at this point we really need to flush out the > CDI/BeanVal stuff from a TCK perspective. Add examples for those things. > Get some more complete Arquillian support for TomEE and beef up the > examples there as well, plus migrate some of our iTests over. > > And of course, get Web Profile Certified. That's hard to do unless you're > a committer with an NDA, so the Arquillian set of tests seems critical for > making it so more people can help in that regard. > > Thoughts? > > > -David > >
