[Jersey] Re: Speeding up jersey-test?

From: Pavel Bucek <>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:40:03 +0200


I agree with Zzantozz, doesn't seem to me like thing which should be
managed by Grizzly. In this case, user is responsible to manage
available resources, not Grizzly, right? I can see your point and I can
imagine some property passed to jersey test framework, which would
specify port range..

We do use similar setup when running our tests on Hudson. Hudson itself
has mechanism to manage free ports and we pass this to Jersey test

Other thing is that we don't support running tests in parallel, as you
correctly stated. In my opinion, this should be filed as a RFE, not a
bug; you state "expected would be ..", but I can't see anything like it
it JerseyTest javadoc [1].



On 4/20/11 1:33 AM, Gili wrote:
> zzantozz,
> There is no way to guarantee that the port number passed from Jersey to
> Grizzly will be available by the time the latter uses ServerSocket. The only
> safe option I can think of is for Grizzly to use the ServerSocket
> constructor that picks an available port at random (and locks it once it has
> been acquired).
> Gili
> zzantozz wrote:
>> That doesn't really require Grizzly to search for open ports (as mentioned
>> in the Grizzly issue in the comments for JERSEY-710). Another alternative
>> would be to allow users to register a "PortSelector" or some such, which
>> would have a method that lets Jersey query it for a port to use when
>> starting Grizzly. Then users have control over the port ranges in use. Of
>> course, having both options would be great.
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Gili&lt;;
>> wrote:
>>> I just filed because jersey-test
>>> makes
>>> it impossible to run unit tests in parallel.
>>> I believe it will be far easier to fix JERSEY-710 than JERSEY-705
>>> (because
>>> it doesn't involve static methods). Can someone please take a look at it?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gili
>>> Gili wrote:
>>>> Done:
>>>> Gili
>>>> On 07/04/2011 11:01 AM, Pavel Bucek-2 [via Jersey] wrote:
>>>>> Hello Naresh and Gili,
>>>>> this would be nice feature, I had something implemented some time ago
>>>>> but I can't find it anymore. Feel free to file RFE for this so we
>>>>> won't forget it again.
>>>>> Pavel
>>>>> On 04/07/2011 07:09 AM, Srinivas Naresh Bhimisetty wrote:
>>>>>> Gili,
>>>>>> as you observed, the JerseyTest starts and stops the test container
>>>>>> before (@Before) and after (@After) each test method is executed.
>>>>>> This sure could be the cause of the time being taken to execute each
>>>>>> test method.
>>>>>> Probably, changing the JerseyTest implementation to start/stop the
>>>>>> test container only once (using the @BeforeClass, @AfterClass
>>>>>> annotations), for all the test methods defined in a test class should
>>>>>> help overcome this.
>>>>>> - Naresh
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Gili<[hidden email]
>>> &lt;/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&amp;node=6250350&amp;i=0&amp;by-user=t&gt;>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> Jersey-test is quite slow. Granted, the unit tests are doing a
>>>>>> lot (starting
>>>>>> up a web server, running the test and shutting down the web
>>>>>> server) but the
>>>>>> end-result is that each @Test takes a minimum of a second
>>>>>> compared with
>>>>>> milliseconds used by my other unit tests. I am using the Grizzly
>>> web
>>>>>> container.
>>>>>> Is there a way to speed up these unit tests? How fast is
>>>>>> InMemoryTestContainer? I can't use it on my end because it
>>>>>> doesn't seem to
>>>>>> be compatible with Guice but I'm just curious how if it makes a
>>> big
>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Gili
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>> &lt;
>>> ;
>>>>>> Sent from the Jersey mailing list archive at
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the
>>>>> discussion below:
>>>>> To unsubscribe from Speeding up jersey-test?, click here
>>>>> &lt;
>>> ;.
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> Sent from the Jersey mailing list archive at
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Jersey mailing list archive at