25 January 2012

Integration Testing for JBoss AS7, Tomcat and Weld SE

Initially, the jeeunit Integration Testing framework was exclusively focused on Java EE 6, supporting GlassFish 3.x, which was the only Java EE 6 compliant server at that time. Support for Resin 4.x has been added in subsequent releases.

With the current release 0.9.1, jeeunit supports JBoss AS 7, as well as alternative containers and injection methods beyond the scope of Java EE 6. You can now run jeeunit tests on Tomcat 6 and 7 and Weld SE containers.

Tomcat can be combined either with Spring 3.1 or with CDI (Weld Servlet) to inject dependencies into jeeunit tests.

And there's more to come: While jeeunit will continue a life of its own for a while, I'm planning to merge it step by step into Pax Exam, the OSGi testing framework of the OPS4J community.

Pax Exam and jeeunit both implement an in-container testing approach - while Pax Exam focuses on OSGi alone, jeeunit now supports various other containers, but no OSGi at all.

The Pax Exam/jeeunit merger opens interesting perspectives for hybrid applications, i.e. enterprise applications composed of traditional WARs and OSGi bundles. GlassFish 3.x supports this hybrid application model, implementing a subset of the OSGi Enterprise specifications.

For Pax Exam, the road towards the next major release 3.0.0 will be marked by a sequence of milestone releases, each of which is to incoporate a new container adapted from jeeunit.

A Pax Exam GlassFish Test Container is the goal of the first proof-of-concept milestone 3.0.0.M1. This is work in progress on a dedicated branch exam3-milestones in the Pax Exam GitHub repository.

Stay tuned...


dtomsu said...

Hi Harald,

you do have a very interesting approach with jeeunit. I can't get it working though with a very simple netbeans project (config is exactly equal to the reference you provided), because of the open issue with the shutdown in process.

Do you already have a workaround for this?

Thanks to you,

Harald Wellmann said...

Hi Daniel,

are you referring to this issue?

If you can isolate your problem to a self-contained test case and attach it to an issue on Google Code, I'm happy to take a look...