You can see it the opposite as well ie you go through http where you can
not desire it.

50-50 case i think.
Le 5 oct. 2015 13:52, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit :

> The fundamental problem (if I had to guess) is that let's say I'm testing a
> REST API (heck even using the REST extension), persistence extension
> doesn't know that my request went through since I'm controlling it, so its
> call backs won't take effect.  By running embedded, you're more likely to
> not be inside the same transaction, which is one of the things being banked
> on I'm sure.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:26 AM Alex Soto <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If there are bugs/improvements let s do it. I am thinking in terms of
> doing
> > the life of developers easier and in fact changing the protocol to
> servlet
> > dos not introduce (a priori) any back incompatibility but a lot of
> > extensions are going to work with embedded mode.
> >
> > Alex.
> >
> > El dg, 4 oct 2015 a les 7:53 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
> va
> > escriure:
> >
> > > Hi Alex
> > >
> > > Local protocol allows nicer start so very tempted to keep it like that.
> > > Servlet protocol has few bugs/issues and is not what you target by
> > default
> > > with embedded adapters IMO.
> > > Le 4 oct. 2015 01:25, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit
> :
> > >
> > > > Hey Alex,
> > > >
> > > > To be honest, I find the protocol section of arquillian the most
> > > confusing
> > > > for new users to pick up.  Why should they care what the protocol
> > > > transferring the test data is using?  I remember at the beginning,
> AS7
> > > had
> > > > a JMX protocol.  This made tons of sense, since it didn't impact the
> > > > running application.  No one understood why their tests stopped work
> > > > though!  Truth be told, the fact that most people end up relying on
> > > > servlet, without even realizing that its the arquillian runtime
> > starting
> > > an
> > > > HTTP request makes it confusing to understand scope.  Basically,
> users
> > > end
> > > > up relying on the servlet protocol to start their HTTP request for
> > them,
> > > > instead of starting an HTTP request for their test invocation.
> > > >
> > > > Just curious, is this out on discourse somewhere? I can continue my
> > whine
> > > > fest there :-)
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM Alex Soto <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello mates,
> > > > >
> > > > > I send this email to start a discussion for a change on TomEE
> > > Arquillian
> > > > > Adapter.
> > > > >
> > > > > The other day, because of the book (Arquillian In Action), I
> checked
> > > the
> > > > > protocol used by different adapters. I noticed that only Weld
> adapter
> > > and
> > > > > TomEE embedded adapter are using the local protocol,all other ones
> > are
> > > > > using the Servlet 3.0 protocol. And maybe you are asking why this
> is
> > > > > important? Well the problem is that a lot of extensions requires
> this
> > > > > protocol to work, for example Arquillian Persistence extension or
> > > > Arquillan
> > > > > Warp extension. In case a user wants to use  embedded TomEE and one
> > > > > extension that requires servlet protocol, it would get a cryptic
> > > > exception.
> > > > > Of course there is a workaround and it is overriding the default
> > > protocol
> > > > > by using protocol special tag in arquillian.xml and adding the
> > > > > servlet-protocol dependency.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that it would be easier for everyone if all adapters works
> in
> > > the
> > > > > same way. With the release of TomEE 7 I think it could be a good
> > > > > opportunity to make this change in the Arquillian embedded adapter
> as
> > > > well
> > > > > and align with the rest of the containers.
> > > > >
> > > > > The change to be done is very simple in terms of code (Adding one
> > > > > dependency and change one String of the adapter).
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think? From the point of view of Arquillian community
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > be the logic step.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to