On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:03 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Gallimore wrote: > >> 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. > > Indeed. I think JetSet was the last tentative name discussed. > > Likely the Tomcat version will only ever be as fast as Tomcat allows. The > Jetty version will no doubt be super fast. > > I wonder how hard it would be if we just extended the Assembler to build the > required Jetty objects and put the code right in the core module. Would be > an interesting branch to experiment with. Sort of a "just make it work and > figure the rest out later" approach to the problem.
I think that would be really easy. It takes about 4 lines of code to start a jetty server. A lot easier that trying to run the jetty xml deployer and integrate with it. david jencks > > We could do some amazing stuff with a more direct and tight integration with > Jetty. I don't know that I have the mental bandwidth to move that forward at > the moment. > > >> 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?). > > Yes. The TCK setup uses it as well. > >> 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. > > We'd have to move all of the Info tree as well. > >> 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. > > There's code for that in the OpenEJB Arquillian. Andrew made a subclass of > ConfigurationFactory that does it. > > Side note, I wonder if we can get ShrinkWrap to work with our > org.apache.openejb.jee tree. > >> 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. > > Separate module sounds fine to me. > >> 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? > > Sure we can. > > > -David > >> 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 >>> >>> >
