Il 01/06/2016 20:16, Ron Sigal ha scritto:
Right, that's what I meant saying that it depends on how you implement the solution. In practice, we might end up needing more than just a single WFLY instance (perhaps because we need different container configurations for different types of tests), but the number of instances should really be limited (let's say less than 5?).
ARQ + Undertow know each other: http://arquillian.org/modules/undertow-embedded-container-adapter/
My first inclination, like Weinan's, was to think that running everything in Wildfly was pretty heavy, but if we just start Wildfly once, that's not so bad.
After all, that's what the TCK does, as well as the new qe TS.And the JBossWS testsuite ;)
One problem I still have is that, when I'm working on a problem, I MUCH prefer running tests in an embedded container like tjws or Undertow.Not sure what the preference is based on, but if that's because you don't want to manually start the container, etc... Arquillian does that for you.
I guess I could just write a standalone test and then turn it into an arquillian test when I'm done. But if Arquillian works with Undertow, which I didn't know, that might be the best of all worlds.I've never tried this, but afaiu yes it works with Undertow.
I'm a little worried though about the time it takes Arquillian to create a WAR, which isn't insignificant ...It's not that bad after all; btw, once you have all tests as arquillian ones and you ensure they do not make assumptions on the server being there just for each of them (which is also good), you can most likely make the testsuite execution concurrent and run multiple tests at the same time.
Cheers
Alessio
-- Alessio Soldano Web Service Lead, JBoss
_______________________________________________ resteasy-dev mailing list resteasy-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
-- My company's smarter than your company (unless you work for Red Hat)