wttools-devel Mailing List for Web Test Tools
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
kobit
Menu
▾
▴
wttools-devel — List for wttools developers
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(17) |
Oct
(16) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
|
From: <wtt...@li...> - 2002-11-08 15:38:11
|
Has anyone else seen this when using ANT to generate test cases with = wttools? java.lang.ClassCastException: testsgen.taskant.LogImpl in GenerateTests.ja= va:300 It looks like line 300 casts a URLClassLoader as a LogIfc. It is throwing = a ClassCastException. In the catch, it prints the stack trace and does a = System.exit(0). After the exit, there are a few lines that look like they try to recover = from this exception, but the system has already exited. I commented out the System.exit and it seems to continue just fine, but my = test cases don't get built. I don't know if the two are related, but I = don't see anything else bad happening to cause the test cases to not get = built. Suggestions? Thanks, Bret Woffinden 801-861-5770 bwo...@no... Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions www.novell.com=20 |
|
From: <wtt...@li...> - 2001-11-07 16:00:24
|
Hello,
Some comments about changes in wttools project.
1. It seems to me that support for compiling for both
new JDK and JDK-1.1 is fully supported now.
However real tests with use protocols implementation
were performed only for new version of JDK in particular
for JDK-1.3.1.
2. Added two readme files. Not to much useful info for us but
maybe people who will download and try to use package
will find something helpful.
3. Full automate process for building releases of our package
can be found in build.xml file.
To build distribution you can simply call command:
ant dist
or
ant dist1.1
Note that for building dist1.1 you must have JDK-1.1 installed somewhere.
4. I created two protocols implementations.
simple... - which is for use in simple application. It implements only subset
of protocol specification but it is very compact and can be used in applets.
It should allow perform simple task like downloading simple data, files and
so on.
extend... - which I hope will be very complex implementation of particular
protocol. It should contain everything what protocol specification offers.
In simple HTTP implementation I put my own implementation but in for
extend package I used very advanced implementation coming from
HTTPClient package created by Ronald Tschalär ro...@in...
It is almost full implementation of HTTP ver. 1.1.
4. And last but for me the most important info.
I published first release of our current protocols implementation.
best regards
Artur Hefczyc
--
Artur Hefczyc
ko...@us...
|
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-11-06 15:48:27
|
There was no info from you longer than one month. So do you still interested in participating in wttools project? regards Artur Hefczyc -- Artur Hefczyc ko...@us... |
|
From: Praveen K. T N <me...@ho...> - 2001-10-21 11:12:11
|
Hello Artur, I have attached the rfc docs along with this mail. Please find the same. Thanks, Praveen. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Artur Hefczyc" <wis...@wp...> To: <wtt...@li...>; "Praveen Kumar T N" <me...@ho...> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [Wttools-devel] wttools status > > Hello Arthur, > > > > I have uploaded three documents related to SNMP today. Upload them to the > > server. Was just wondering would it be a better idea to give links to RFC's > > than uploading the documents itself. Let me know what u think about this? > Unless documents are not very large I prefer to have them all in one place. > Send urls to these docs to me and I will put them to our docs directory. > > Artur > > -- > Artur Hefczyc > ko...@us... > > |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-10-19 08:03:36
|
> Sorry for the delay, but I put up a somewhat new schme for the web pages. > There's till a lot of room for CONTENT!! :o)), but it's starting to gel, > anyway! > http://www.intenseculture.com/wttools/home.php Thanks, nice job. It seems to me that it is very close to put them on the server. To make it possible in shortest time i suggest for now make temporarily urls from some buttons to SF pages. For example: Project --> http://sourceforge.net/projects/wttools/ Dev Team --> https://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=31579 Download --> https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=31579 Is there any way to resize SourceForge image to make it the same size as our buttons? For "Product Specs" I will try to prepare something but for now we can put there something like "under construction". "Licence" - There is no "GPU Licence" our software should be developed under one of two licences: 1. "The GNU General Public License" - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html 2. " The GNU Lesser General Public License" - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html "Dev Team" --> now we can put url to pages as I show above. But in future we could put there some info about our developers. I suggest to prepare some info by everyone participated in wttools and we can put it in this page or we can put some links to pages of our developers. "Contact us!" --> it seems to me that here we could put some e-mail addresses to developers who are responsible for important part of the project: 1. ko...@us... - project coordination 2. gin...@us... - project site designer 3. tnp...@us... - java SNMP implementation and so on... regards Artur Hefczyc -- Artur Hefczyc ko...@us... |
|
From: Regina M. <gmu...@ho...> - 2001-10-18 02:55:31
|
Hi all! Sorry for the delay, but I put up a somewhat new schme for the web pages. There's till a lot of room for CONTENT!! :o)), but it's starting to gel, anyway! Regina http://www.intenseculture.com/wttools/home.php |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-10-17 10:22:55
|
Hi,
I made many changes in java protocols implememtation.
1. First and most important change is REMOVE all files from
wttools/src/client/protocols/java
All of them are placed now in different repository.
you can download them with commands
export CVSROOT=:ext:use...@cv...:/cvsroot/wttools
cvs -z3 co jprotocols
2. I changed directory hierarhy.
There is no "org.gnu.protocols" package
Now I created "wttools.protocols" package
3. you can easily build jar files for both new JVM and JVM-1.1
for use in applets
ant jar - for new JVM
ant jar1.1 - for JVM-1.1
You should have JDK1.1 to compile it.
4. I added jar/ directory where there are the most current jar files
for both JVM-1.1 and JVM-1.3
5. HTTP protocol is now usable - can cownload files from most of web servers
(I hope :-))
regards
Artur Hefczyc
--
Artur Hefczyc
ko...@us...
|
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-10-15 09:46:50
|
> Hello Arthur, > > I have uploaded three documents related to SNMP today. Upload them to the > server. Was just wondering would it be a better idea to give links to RFC's > than uploading the documents itself. Let me know what u think about this? Unless documents are not very large I prefer to have them all in one place. Send urls to these docs to me and I will put them to our docs directory. Artur -- Artur Hefczyc ko...@us... |
|
From: Praveen K. T N <me...@ho...> - 2001-10-11 00:24:29
|
Will it be better if we have "rfcs.wttools.protocols" or "rfcs.protocols"? Praveen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Artur Hefczyc" <wis...@wp...> To: "Praveen Kumar T N" <me...@ho...> Cc: <wtt...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [Wttools-devel] wttools status > > Should we think of some logger mechanism to log our debug messages of our > > protocol implementations. As our code base increases in size, it becomes > > increasingly difficult to debug and troubleshoot the problem. If we all > > agree on having a logging mechanism, question will be whether it should it > > be a centralized logging mechanism or a seperate one for each protocol? > > > > In any case we can make use of the Log4j to log system debug messages. Here > > is the URL for that, take a look at it > > http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/index.html > > > > Let us know what you guys think about this. > > Yes you are absolutly right. We strongly need some logging mechanism. > I saw that jakarta working on something but I couldn't anough time > to learn more about it. > > So at the moment I recommend to define some LogIfc.java > with standards logging methods. > And in future we can prepare some implementation of this interface > and use them whenever necessary. > > I try to prepare some sample code this or next week. > > And addition important new: > > to avoid other java packages conflicts we must change our > library tree structure. > I suggest to move from > org.gnu.protocols.* > tree > to something like: > wttools.protocols.* > or something similiar. Have you any interesting suggestions? > > Artur Hefczyc > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wttools-devel mailing list > Wtt...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wttools-devel > |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-10-09 21:51:25
|
> <PRAVEEN> Got the point. First we create protocol implementations which > conform to the > RFC specifications and then later use them to test the client/server side. > I assume all the protocols will be packaged into one single jar file. Can > we think of building individual packages too? Let me know what you think > about this? > </PRAVEEN> Fine. In general I think that it is better to create one jar file. We can use some inteligent algorithm which would load all our protocols implementations ans use it whenever necessary. On the another side I can don't know why we couldn't distribute jar file with only one protocol implementation in particular situation. If we would be sure that we will be using only one protocol in applets for example it could be usefull to distribute smaller jar file. So finally i am not sure now. It is possible to create both full jar file with all protocols and smaller jar files with subset of implemented protocols. > <PRAVEEN> > Additional usage of this tool what I can think of is to generate traffic > related to different protocols. This can be used in various QoS testing > where we need to generate a lot of user application traffic for ex: Email, > Web, FTP, SNMP and ..... traffic. It will be nice to have this as one of > our methods in all our protocols. > </PRAVEEN> Yes you are right, nice idea. However it seems to me that somethink like that should be implemented on higher level not protocol implementation level. But it would be very usefull to have one way to accomplish that for all protocols. At the moment I also think about general caching library for our protocols. But also on higher level that protocols implementation. > <PRAVEEN> > As you say, having only one interface will be easier rather than > maintaining many interfaces for protocols. This is also a good suggestion, > but we don't get any extra benefits with the SimpleProtocolsIfc interface. > So lets just proceed with the earlier design only. > </PRAVEEN> Fine, ok. But if you fine some usefull, general features for ProtocolIfc we can add them to improve our protocols managment. > <PRAVEEN> > I am currently working on this, Will send you the methods hopefully by the > end of day today. > </PRAVEEN> OK, If you will have something put it to cvs repository. Than I can download code and look how it works. Artur Hefczyc |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-10-09 21:51:24
|
On Sunday 07 October 2001 05:14 am, you wrote: > Hi Arthur, > > How will this affect us? I have no idea about these License issues, Could > you please elaborate on this and tell us how to handle this...? Do you mean > that there will be two code branches one for GPL and the other one for > LGPL? I general there is only one difference between GPL and LGPL licence. GPL licence said that if you use GPL'ed code in your software than your software also must be OpenSource GPL, free (no charge) code but LGPL licence allow to use code (library for example) in your software and there is no necessary to make your application also open source, gpl. You application can be fully commercial and expensive software. In consequence if we choosing LGPL licence we can have more users of our library. (Also commercial companies would use it). In general i recomend to use LGPL for libraries and GPL for applications. Artur Hefczyc |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-10-09 21:51:16
|
> Should we think of some logger mechanism to log our debug messages of our > protocol implementations. As our code base increases in size, it becomes > increasingly difficult to debug and troubleshoot the problem. If we all > agree on having a logging mechanism, question will be whether it should it > be a centralized logging mechanism or a seperate one for each protocol? > > In any case we can make use of the Log4j to log system debug messages. Here > is the URL for that, take a look at it > http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/index.html > > Let us know what you guys think about this. Yes you are absolutly right. We strongly need some logging mechanism. I saw that jakarta working on something but I couldn't anough time to learn more about it. So at the moment I recommend to define some LogIfc.java with standards logging methods. And in future we can prepare some implementation of this interface and use them whenever necessary. I try to prepare some sample code this or next week. And addition important new: to avoid other java packages conflicts we must change our library tree structure. I suggest to move from org.gnu.protocols.* tree to something like: wttools.protocols.* or something similiar. Have you any interesting suggestions? Artur Hefczyc |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-10-09 21:51:11
|
Hi, > I started a new position this week, so I apologize. What is it you need > done? I should be able to get to it this weekend. I am not sure but it seems to me that I sent to you some suggestions as attachment (in txt file) or to wttools-devel mailing list. I am not at home now nor at my job so I can resend it to you this week. So if you can find this info you can wait till next week or if you found these suggestion you can make all changes and put all pages to our wttools.sourcefoge.net home site. I got you all rights necessay to put our web pages and docs. However if you have any troubles I can help you. regards Artur Hefczyc -- Artur Hefczyc ko...@us... |
|
From: Praveen K. T N <me...@ho...> - 2001-10-07 04:14:16
|
Hi Folks, Should we think of some logger mechanism to log our debug messages of our protocol implementations. As our code base increases in size, it becomes increasingly difficult to debug and troubleshoot the problem. If we all agree on having a logging mechanism, question will be whether it should it be a centralized logging mechanism or a seperate one for each protocol? In any case we can make use of the Log4j to log system debug messages. Here is the URL for that, take a look at it http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/index.html Let us know what you guys think about this. Thanks, Praveen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Artur Hefczyc" <art...@nu...> To: <wtt...@li...> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:07 PM Subject: [Wttools-devel] wttools status > Hi, > Some info about wttools changes: > 1. I put some new code in java-protocols package > and I changed few minor methods in ProtocolIfc > and AbstractProtocol. In particular I changed of > use Hashtable to HashMap > 2. I put some RFCs in docs panel to improve access to > specification. I you would like to have some additional > RFC there inform me. > 3. New HTTP implementation has some functionality at the moment: > - can connect to www server > - can send request for headers to www server > - can receive and extract headers from www server > You can look in src code and send some suggestions if you like. > > Artur Hefczyc > -- > Artur Hefczyc > NuTech Solutions > art...@nu... > > > _______________________________________________ > Wttools-devel mailing list > Wtt...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wttools-devel > |
|
From: Praveen K. T N <me...@ho...> - 2001-10-07 04:06:47
|
Hi Arthur, Thanks for the reply. Please see inline for my comments. > > I am trying to put all the pieces into one. It would be great if you could give > > one complete user scenario as to how wttools will help the end user in > > testing his product. This will kinda complete the picture..... > I am not sure what you expect. I am going to create protocols implementations in java > which should conform to full protocols specification or should be very close > to full protocols specification. > Than we should define some test scenarios, and implement application which > could realize given test scenarios. > These applications should use our protocols implementations and our protocols > implementations shouldn't be dependent on particular application. > As a one test scenario I can imagine tools which could answer question: > "Is given application conforming particular protocol specification?" > For example suppose we have somewhere WWW server and we must test > if it conform full HTTP specification. We create http client which could test > remote www server. But first we need proper http implementation at client side. > <PRAVEEN> Got the point. First we create protocol implementations which conform to the RFC specifications and then later use them to test the client/server side. I assume all the protocols will be packaged into one single jar file. Can we think of building individual packages too? Let me know what you think about this? </PRAVEEN> > There are some test scenarios which could be used for testing different kind of > WEB application however all protocols have very specific functionality which > should be tested by specialized tools and test scenarios. > I hope that every developer in wttools team which have deep knowledge of > given protocol could send some suggestions about testing particular application. <PRAVEEN> Additional usage of this tool what I can think of is to generate traffic related to different protocols. This can be used in various QoS testing where we need to generate a lot of user application traffic for ex: Email, Web, FTP, SNMP and ..... traffic. It will be nice to have this as one of our methods in all our protocols. </PRAVEEN> > > > From the SNMP client perspective there is no UserName and UserPassword > > associated. Here, we come across "CommunityStrings". They are Read and Write > > community strings. Every SNMP Get/Set which is a UDP Packet which goes from > > client(Management station) to the server(Agent) should contain appropriate community > > string as one of the parameters. With respect to Trivial File Transfer Protocol(TFTP) > > too the UserName and UserPassword is also redundant. With this in mind, I suggest > > methods like "getUserName", "setUserName", "setPassword", "getPassword" be > > removed from ProtocolIfc and moved to specific Protocol Implementations.Let me > > know your thoughts on this? > Yes you are right. > ProtocolIfc are designed for "URL/URI based" protocols. I don't know SNMP > yet and I can't fully answer your question however it seems to that it is better to have > one interface with reduntant set of methods for all protocols than creating many > interfaces for each protocol. Note that with one interface we can use only one way to access > internet resource. > Look in TestClient and ProtocolFactory sources and you can see how easy could be > use of many different protocols in one application if we could use one interface. > I would like to use this one interface if it is possible even if some methods will be > empty-implemented or throwing exception with illegalaccess or something similiar. > > On the other side I consider to create one additional interface with small subset of > methods used by all possible protocols implementation. > For example our class design would look like: > > SimpleProtocolsIfc |--- extendent by ---> ProtocolIfc |--- implemented by ---> > ---> AbstractProtocol |--- extendent by ---> ProtocolImpl > <PRAVEEN> As you say, having only one interface will be easier rather than maintaining many interfaces for protocols. This is also a good suggestion, but we don't get any extra benefits with the SimpleProtocolsIfc interface. So lets just proceed with the earlier design only. </PRAVEEN> > What do you think about it? Would you send some suggestions what set of methods > we should put in SimpleProtocolIfc according to your SNMP knowledge? <PRAVEEN> I am currently working on this, Will send you the methods hopefully by the end of day today. </PRAVEEN> > > > > Artur, can we build privately once before committing any changes onto the CVS. How > > to build and run on the client? If u have any useful pointers for this..Please let me > know. First I created build.xml file. It allows to build java packages with ANT tool. > you can find it at (http://jakarta.apache.org/ant/index.html). It seems that it is > standard now for java application. > Second I created and put build.sh - bash script which allow to build package in unix > environment. Look in code and modify it according to your devel environment. > > I recomend to download and use ANT becouse it has many advantages and allows > build java packages under MS WIN and unixes the same way. > > If you have any troubles send quetions and I will try to help you. <PRAVEEN> Thanks.. I will try to set this up. Will get in touch with you if I need your help. </PRAVEEN> Regards, Praveen Kumar T N tnp...@us... |
|
From: Praveen K. T N <me...@ho...> - 2001-10-07 03:13:36
|
Hi Arthur, How will this affect us? I have no idea about these License issues, Could you please elaborate on this and tell us how to handle this...? Do you mean that there will be two code branches one for GPL and the other one for LGPL? Thanks, Praveen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Artur Hefczyc" <art...@nu...> To: <wtt...@li...> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 4:40 PM Subject: [Wttools-devel] Licence change > Hi, > I added another licence which would be used in our project. > I got request from company which would like to use our > java protocol implementation in his commercial application. > > So now I recomend to use LGPL for libraries like > java-protocols.jar > and GPL for stand-alone application. > > It is not recomended to mix in one package this two > licences. > All files in java-protocols package should be developed > under LGPL licence. > > regards > Artur Hefczyc > -- > Artur Hefczyc > NuTech Solutions > art...@nu... > > > _______________________________________________ > Wttools-devel mailing list > Wtt...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wttools-devel > |
|
From: Artur H. <art...@nu...> - 2001-10-04 11:38:15
|
Hi,
Some info about wttools changes:
1. I put some new code in java-protocols package
and I changed few minor methods in ProtocolIfc
and AbstractProtocol. In particular I changed of
use Hashtable to HashMap
2. I put some RFCs in docs panel to improve access to
specification. I you would like to have some additional
RFC there inform me.
3. New HTTP implementation has some functionality at the moment:
- can connect to www server
- can send request for headers to www server
- can receive and extract headers from www server
You can look in src code and send some suggestions if you like.
Artur Hefczyc
--
Artur Hefczyc
NuTech Solutions
art...@nu...
|
|
From: Artur H. <art...@nu...> - 2001-10-04 11:11:11
|
Hi, I added another licence which would be used in our project. I got request from company which would like to use our java protocol implementation in his commercial application. So now I recomend to use LGPL for libraries like java-protocols.jar and GPL for stand-alone application. It is not recomended to mix in one package this two licences. All files in java-protocols package should be developed under LGPL licence. regards Artur Hefczyc -- Artur Hefczyc NuTech Solutions art...@nu... |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-10-03 16:23:45
|
Hi, > I am trying to put all the pieces into one. It would be great if you could give > one complete user scenario as to how wttools will help the end user in > testing his product. This will kinda complete the picture..... I am not sure what you expect. I am going to create protocols implementations in java which should conform to full protocols specification or should be very close to full protocols specification. Than we should define some test scenarios, and implement application which could realize given test scenarios. These applications should use our protocols implementations and our protocols implementations shouldn't be dependent on particular application. As a one test scenario I can imagine tools which could answer question: "Is given application conforming particular protocol specification?" For example suppose we have somewhere WWW server and we must test if it conform full HTTP specification. We create http client which could test remote www server. But first we need proper http implementation at client side. There are some test scenarios which could be used for testing different kind of WEB application however all protocols have very specific functionality which should be tested by specialized tools and test scenarios. I hope that every developer in wttools team which have deep knowledge of given protocol could send some suggestions about testing particular application. > From the SNMP client perspective there is no UserName and UserPassword > associated. Here, we come across "CommunityStrings". They are Read and Write > community strings. Every SNMP Get/Set which is a UDP Packet which goes from > client(Management station) to the server(Agent) should contain appropriate community > string as one of the parameters. With respect to Trivial File Transfer Protocol(TFTP) > too the UserName and UserPassword is also redundant. With this in mind, I suggest > methods like "getUserName", "setUserName", "setPassword", "getPassword" be > removed from ProtocolIfc and moved to specific Protocol Implementations. Let me > know your thoughts on this? Yes you are right. ProtocolIfc are designed for "URL/URI based" protocols. I don't know SNMP yet and I can't fully answer your question however it seems to that it is better to have one interface with reduntant set of methods for all protocols than creating many interfaces for each protocol. Note that with one interface we can use only one way to access internet resource. Look in TestClient and ProtocolFactory sources and you can see how easy could be use of many different protocols in one application if we could use one interface. I would like to use this one interface if it is possible even if some methods will be empty-implemented or throwing exception with illegalaccess or something similiar. On the other side I consider to create one additional interface with small subset of methods used by all possible protocols implementation. For example our class design would look like: SimpleProtocolsIfc |--- extendent by ---> ProtocolIfc |--- implemented by ---> ---> AbstractProtocol |--- extendent by ---> ProtocolImpl What do you think about it? Would you send some suggestions what set of methods we should put in SimpleProtocolIfc according to your SNMP knowledge? > Artur, can we build privately once before committing any changes onto the CVS. How > to build and run on the client? If u have any useful pointers for this..Please let me know. First I created build.xml file. It allows to build java packages with ANT tool. you can find it at (http://jakarta.apache.org/ant/index.html). It seems that it is standard now for java application. Second I created and put build.sh - bash script which allow to build package in unix environment. Look in code and modify it according to your devel environment. I recomend to download and use ANT becouse it has many advantages and allows build java packages under MS WIN and unixes the same way. If you have any troubles send quetions and I will try to help you. redards Artur Hefczyc -- Artur Hefczyc ko...@us... |
|
From: Praveen K. T N <me...@ho...> - 2001-09-30 16:08:40
|
Hello Artur, I am trying to put all the pieces into one. It would be great if you = could give one complete user scenario as to how wttools will help the = end user in testing his product. This will kinda complete the = picture..... From the SNMP client perspective there is no UserName and UserPassword = associated. Here, we come across "CommunityStrings". They are Read and = Write community strings. Every SNMP Get/Set which is a UDP Packet which = goes from client(Management station) to the server(Agent) should contain = appropriate community string as one of the parameters. With respect to = Trivial File Transfer Protocol(TFTP) too the UserName and UserPassword = is also redundant. With this in mind, I suggest methods like = "getUserName", "setUserName", "setPassword", "getPassword" be removed = from ProtocolIfc and moved to specific Protocol Implementations. Let me = know your thoughts on this? Artur, can we build privately once before committing any changes onto = the CVS. How to build and run on the client? If u have any useful = pointers for this..Please let me know. Thanks. Praveen |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-09-27 22:30:04
|
I have made many changes to wttools java code. At the moment it is possible to run simply test application which uses FTP or HTTP protocol downloads file from remote web server. At the moment it uses standard sun's protocols imlementation from JDK-1.3.1. But it can be simply changed when we will get our own wttools protocols implementation. Changes details put intu attachment. ProtocolFactory works OK URI works OK org.gnu.protocols.sunp.ProtocolImpl works OK please note some minor changes in ProtocolIfc and AbstractProtocol regards Artur Hefczyc |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-09-27 08:19:04
|
hi > thank you for the comments in the interface class. also the test client is > really helpful. i hope to make some progresses this weekend. Fine, but note that TestClient I created for my testing. To make usefull TestClient for your developing you should change line: ProtocolIfc proto = ProtocolFactory.createStandardImpl(new URI(url), debug); to ProtocolIfc proto = ProtocolFactory.createProtocol(new URI(url), debug); I create bridge to standard java protocols implementation first to have something working soon. I implemented HTTP earlier but it isn't compatible with the current design so in short time I try to reimplement it. And please note that URI class is not ready yet. Chauhan is taking care of that class but there is exams time in universities now and we must wait for this class yet. Maybe I try tu put some usefull code today. Artur Hefczyc -- Artur Hefczyc ko...@us... |
|
From: Christian W. <ch...@kl...> - 2001-09-27 07:40:07
|
hi artur thank you for the comments in the interface class. also the test client is really helpful. i hope to make some progresses this weekend. christian |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-09-27 06:27:09
|
I just put TestClient.java file to cvs repository to allow performing simple tests during implementing test. It should contain some more features, I add them as soon as possible. Artur Hefczyc -- Artur Hefczyc ko...@us... |
|
From: Artur H. <wis...@wp...> - 2001-09-26 15:21:02
|
Hi, > - it would be a great help if you could give comments/explanantions to all > methods/classes used in your design, especially for the interfaces and > abstract classes. so it will become much more easier for me to implement the > ftp stuff in the given design. rigth at the moment not every method > definition is clear to me, so often i don't know what you expect to be > implemented. I just added comments to all methods in ProtocolIfc.java file and put this file to cvs repository. It is interface which is extended by AbstractProtocol.java so it contains all methods which I can see as common for all protocols implementation. So please read comments for methods in file wttools/src/clients/protocols/java/org/gnu/protocols/ifc/ProtocolsIfc.java If something isn't clear yet send questions what you need to know else. regards Artur Hefczyc -- Artur Hefczyc ko...@us... |