-
1. Re: JGroups configuration (JBMESSAGING-960)
timfox May 16, 2007 4:07 PM (in response to sergeypk)True, we are basically just testing JGroups functionality, but there is no harm ion having more tests.
BTW you could avoid the nasty private field inspection by subclassing ClusteredPersistenceServiceConfigFileJChannelFactory and adding an getter for the JChannel, this would be cleaner.
Anyway this is not critical for now. -
2. Re: JGroups configuration (JBMESSAGING-960)
sergeypk May 17, 2007 4:14 AM (in response to sergeypk)Ok so I'm going to add other similar tests to check the rest of Brian's points. I don't want to use CPSCFJChannelFactory in the tests because it's a test-related object and I'd rather test the real thing. I could make DefaultClusteredPostOffice.syncChannel and asyncChannel fields protected, derive a test class from it exposing those fields and then use that class, but it looks like a lot of work for little payoff.
-
3. Re: JGroups configuration (JBMESSAGING-960)
clebert.suconic May 17, 2007 12:49 PM (in response to sergeypk)I'm adding -Djgroups.bind_addr=127.0.0.1 on places where we are starting JVMs on the testsuite, then we would use 127.0.0.1 as we used to do.
I couldn't find a way to open UDP on my wireless router, so I guess this would be better for our testing. -
4. Re: JGroups configuration (JBMESSAGING-960)
clebert.suconic May 17, 2007 12:52 PM (in response to sergeypk)Errr.. Never mind... Sergey had already done the same exact change! :-)
Actuallly.. kind of funny Sergey's change was on the same line.. same spacing... It is kind of a simple change.. but I felt funny the same way! -
5. Re: JGroups configuration (JBMESSAGING-960)
timfox May 17, 2007 12:55 PM (in response to sergeypk)I think Clebert invented the alter ego of Sergey, so he could receive a double salary. ;)