Category Archives: Java

JavaOne Latin America summary

Last week I attended the JavaOne Latin America software development conference in São Paulo, Brazil. This was a joint event with Oracle Open World, a conference with focus on Oracle solutions. I was accepted as a speaker for the Java, DevOps and Methodologies track at JavaOne. This article intends to give a summary of my main takeaways from the event.

The main points Oracle made during the opening keynote of Oracle Open World was their commitment to cloud technology. Oracle CEO Mark Hurd made the prediction that in 10 years, most production workloads will be running in the cloud. Oracle currently engineers all of their solutions for the cloud, which is something that also their on-premise solutions can leverage from. Security is a very important aspect in all of their solutions. Quite a few sessions during JavaOne showcased Java applications running on Oracles cloud platform.

The JavaOne opening keynote demonstrated the Java flight recorder, which enables you to profile your applications with near zero overhead. The aim of the flight recorder is to have as minimal overhead as possible so it can be enabled in production systems by default. It has a user interface which provides valuable data in case you want to get an understanding of how your Java applications perform.

The next version of Java, Java 9, will feature long awaited modularity through project Jigsaw. Today, all of your public APIs in your source code packages are exposed and can be used by anyone who has access to the classes. With Jigsaw, you as a developer can decide which classes are exported and exposed. This gives you as a developer more control over what are internal APIs and what are intended for use. This was quickly demonstrated on stage. You will also have the possibility to decide what your application dependencies are within the JDK. For instance it is quite unlikely that you need e.g. UI related libraries such as Swing or audio if you develop back-end software. I once tried to dissect the Java rt.jar for this particular purpose (just for fun), so it is nice to finally see this becoming a reality. The keynote also mentioned project Valhalla (e.g. value types for classes) and project Panama but at this date it is still uncertain if they will be included in Java 9.

Mark Heckler from Pivotal had an interesting session on the Spring framework and their Spring cloud projects. Pivotal works closely with Netflix, which is a known open source contributor and one of the industry leaders when it comes to developing and using new technologies. However, since Netflix is committed to run their applications on AWS, Spring cloud aims to make use of Netflix work to create portable solutions for a wider community by introducing appropriate abstraction layers. This enables Spring cloud users to avoid changing their code if there is a need to change the underlying technology. Spring cloud has support for Netflix tools such as Eureka, Ribbon, Zuul, Hystrix among others.

Arquillian, by many considered the best integration testing framework for Java EE projects, was dedicated a full one hour session at the event. As a long time contributor to project, it was nice to see a presentation about it and how its Cube extension can make use of Docker containers to execute your tests against.

One interesting session was a non-technical one, also given by Mark Heckler, which focused on financial equations and what factors drives business decisions. The purpose was to give an understanding of how businesses calculate paybacks and return on investments and when and why it makes sense for a company to invest in new technology. For instance the payback period for an initiative should be as short as possible, preferably less than a year. The presentation also covered net present values and quantification’s. Transforming a monolithic architecture to a microservice style approach was the example used for the calculations. The average cadence for releases of key monolithic applications in our industry is just one release per year. Which in many cases is even optimistic! Compare these numbers with Amazon, who have developed their applications with a microservice architecture since 2011. Their average release cadence is 7448 times a day, which means that they perform a production release once every 11.6s! This presentation certainly laid a good foundation for my own session on continuous delivery.

Then it was finally time for my presentation! When I arrived 10 minutes before the talk there was already a long line outside of the room and it filled up nicely. In my presentation, The Road to Continuous Delivery, I talked about how a Swedish company revamped its organization to implement a completely new distributed system running on the Java platform and using continuous delivery ways of working. I started with a quick poll of how many in the room were able to perform production releases every day and I was apparently the only one. So I’m glad that there was a lot of interest for this topic at the conference! If you are interested in having me presenting this or another talk on the topic at your company or at an event, please contact me! It was great fun to give this presentation and I got some good questions and interesting discussions afterwards. You can find the slides for my presentation here.

Java Virtual Machine (JVM) architect Mikael Vidstedt had an interesting presentation about JVM insights. It is apparently not uncommon that the vast majority of the Java heap footprint is taken up by String objects (25-50% not uncommon) and many of them have the same value. JDK 8 however introduced an important JVM improvement to address this memory footprint concern (through string deduplication) in their G1 garbage collector improvement effort.

I was positively surprised that many sessions where quite non-technical. A few sessions talked about possibilities with the Raspberry Pi embedded device, but there was also a couple of presentations that touched on software development in a broader sense. I think it is good and important for conferences of this size to have such a good balance in content.

All in all I thought it was a good event. Both JavaOne and Oracle Open World combined for around 1300 attendees and a big exhibition hall. JavaOne was multi-track, but most sessions were in Portuguese. However, there was usually one track dedicated to English speaking sessions but it obviously limited the available content somewhat for non-Portuguese speaking attendees. An interesting feature was that the sessions held in English were live translated to Portuguese to those who lent headphones for that purpose.

The best part of the conference was that I got to meet a lot of people from many different countries. It is great fun to meet colleagues from all around the world that shares my enthusiasm and passion for software development. The strive for making this industry better continues!

Tommy Tynjä
LinkedIn profile

Jfokus 2015 main takeaways

The biggest Java conference in Sweden, Jfokus, wrapped up a three day conference on Wednesday. This was my fifth consecutive one and I thought it was the best in recent years. In this blog post I’ll summarize my main takeaways.

During the first day, the tutorial day, I truly enjoyed Ken Sipe from Mesosphere and his talk “Docker at Production Scale”. It was supposed to be a tutorial but it wasn’t focused on one subject, which one might expect from the title. The talk was divided in several parts where he first started talking about infrastructure in general, what’s problematic in today’s datacenters regarding resource consumption etc. He then gave a good intro to Docker, where even I who have been using Docker on a day-to-day basis during the last two months learned a couple of new things. The last part of the talk focused on Apache Mesos, which problems it solves and how. He briefly also touched on subjects such as Service Discovery. For me, the main takeaway from this talk is that the way we structure our datacenters and our applications are definitely changing and that there is a lot of exciting technologies taking form in this area at this point of time.

Christian Heilmann held an interesting opening keynote where he talked a lot about mobile apps and their profitability. He pinpointed that many think apps are sure way to make good money, but in reality, that is not the case. Very few apps out of all apps in the marketplace are actually that profitable. Your company will have a greater chance of making money out of apps if targeting the enterprise customers instead of individuals. Enterprises are constantly looking for ways for their employees to be more efficient and certain apps could possible help them achieve that. Individuals are also very conservative now days when it comes to installing new apps. Most people just go with the apps they have and install one or no new app per month. He had some interesting figures backing up those statements.

A great talk was “Thinking fast and slow in software development” by Daniel Bryant. His talk was based on the book Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman, but applied to software development. One good quote from this talk was “look for actual problems instead of solutions”. As developers we tend to start elaborating solutions instead of trying to understand the actual problem. Are we really understanding what the actual problem is? Or do we just think we know what the problem is when in fact do not? He also mentioned that some of the most common factors for failures in software projects (source IEEE) is poor communication among customers, developers and users, the use of immature technology and sloppy development practices. These are things that we definitely could do better at in our industry! There is no reason why we should accept this happening. We should all care more about software craftsmanship.

Jeremy Deane held an interesting presetnation on concurrent processing techniques using e.g. plain java.util.concurrent techniques and actors. He had a few good tips on how to decouple a web service which under the hood depend on a slow responding third party web service by making the communication in between them asynchronous. All of his examples can be found in his GitHub repo.

As usual at Jfokus, Arun Gupta presented what’s to come in the next Java EE version, in this case Java EE 8. Focus will be to improve the new features introduced in Java EE 7 to make them more usable. Support for HTTP 2 and HTML 5 will be added to help those technologies gain traction. Servlet 4.0 will be introduced as well as MVC 1.0. JAX-RS, JMS and JSON APIs will also get facelifts. The Batch processing API will not be tied to Java EE only but will in the future be available in conjunction with Java SE as well. Obviously Java EE 8 will contain improvements for the new language features introduced in Java 8, such as functional interfaces etc.

The second day kicked off with a talk by Jez Humble called “21st Century Software Delivery”. He really put emphasis on how important continuous delivery is along with continuous experimentation. As an industry, we are bad at experimenting. We try to build this big thing that we think our customers want (but which we don’t really know). Instead we should try out the thing we’re building in a small scale first, not only as a protype but a fully functional, nice and shiny feature that the customers will appreciate, but with very limited scope. We can then measure how well this experiment turns out by conducting A/B testing and comparing the analytics for this feature. Should we continue to build on top of that experiment or not? You wouldn’t go out to build a very large complex building without building it in small scale first and to assure that techniques and functionality is matching the expections. We should do that in software development as well.

Jez Humbles second talk, on automated acceptance testing was valuable. For me, who am passionated about delivering quality software, there wasn’t much new in his content but it was still refreshing to get reminded on why we actually want to do testing in a certain way, even though you might do it already. Most people have probably encountered flaky tests. Those tests that for one reason or another goes red with or without an apparant reason, just to go green in a build later containing a totally unrelated code change. Flaky tests leads to less confidence and trust for the tests which eventually leads to people ignoring them or not even running them at all. One interesting technique to battle flaky tests is to move known flaky tests to separate suite, which is to be run separately (preferrably after) your actual suite. Then, you can remain confident about your test suite always being reliable. When a flaky test has become stable again, it should move back into the main suite. It is important to remember that test suite shouldn’t be static. Tests should come and go and be moved appropriately alongside the codebase development. Do also not be afraid to actually delete tests that no longer brings value. We are horrible at identifying and actually removing those tests.

In between talks I also enjoyed meeting a lot of people I’ve worked with in various projects throughout my career. Always a real pleasure to catch up with old friends as well as getting to know a few new ones as well. I also got a brief chat with Jez Humble regarding continuous delivery and strategies for balancing between maintenance and development of new features in highly autonomous teams with end-to-end responsibility, a discussion which was very much appreciated. Even though the vast majority of sessions were awesome, I almost wish there would have been some more breaks as well so I could have had the opportunity for even more socializing.

All in all, a great event. Thanks to everyone involved in organizing this event and to all the speakers and attendees. See you in 2016!

Tommy Tynjä

Feature switches in practice

Feature switches (or feature flags, toggles etc) is a programming technique which has gained a lot of attention through the concepts of Trunk Based Development and Continuous Delivery. Feature switches allows you to shield not yet production ready code while still being committed to mainline in version control. This allows you to work on development tasks on mainline and to continuously integrate your code while avoiding the burdens of branching. Another useful benefit is that you can decide which functionality to run in production by switching functionality on/off. The best thing is that this technique is very easy to implement, you basically just need to start doing it! In this blog post I’ll show you how easy it is to do this in Java.

In my current project we are integrating to a third party service which our system depends heavily on. While our system will continue to work if that third party service becomes unavailable, it still means a loss in revenue to the business. Therefore we want to be able to monitor this integration point closely and provide mechanisms to be able to troubleshoot it efficiently. As the communication between these systems are web service based through SOAP, we found it very useful to be able to log the entire payloads sent and received between the two systems. This feature is an ideal candidate for feature switching.

I implemented a feature which allows us to decide in runtime whether we should log every SOAP message sent and received to a file system. This would also happen asynchronously to not affect application throughput too much. This feature would be switched off in production by default, but would allow us to turn it on if we needed to troubleshoot integration failures.

The most basic feature switch to implement would just be a simple if-statement:

boolean xmlLogFeatureIsEnabled = false;
if (xmlLogFeatureIsEnabled) {

But instead of hardcoding the feature switch state, we want this to be dynamically evaluated so we can change the behavior on a running system without the need for restarts or too much manual labor. To be able to do this we use a small framework called Togglz, which allows you to very easily create feature switches which you then can manage in runtime.

First, we create a feature definition enumeration which implements org.togglz.core.Feature:

public enum FeatureDefinition implements Feature {

    @Label("Log XML to file")

    public boolean isActive() {
        return FeatureContext.getFeatureManager().isActive(this);

Then, we implement org.togglz.core.manager.TogglzConfig which will keep track of the feature states:

public class FeatureConfiguration implements TogglzConfig {

    private Datasource datasource;

    public Class<? extends Feature> getFeatureClass() {
        return FeatureDefinition.class;

    public StateRepository getStateRepository() {
        return new CachingStateRepository(new JDBCStateRepository(datasource), 10, TimeUnit.MINUTES);

    public UserProvider getUserProvider() {
        return new NoOpUserProvider();

We use dependency injection in our project, so this allows us to easily inject a datasource in our feature configuration which Togglz can use to store the feature states in. We then apply a 10 minute cache for the feature state reload so that Togglz won’t have to look up the state in the database for each time a feature state is evaluated. Please note that you might want to implement the configuration a bit more robust than in the example above. When we want to switch a feature on/off it is merely a matter of updating a database column value.

At last, we just change the if-statement encapsulating the feature method call to:

if (FeatureDefinition.LOG_XML_TO_FILE.isActive()) {

And that’s it! This is all we need to do to be able to dynamically switch features on/off in a running Java system. This technique is very useful when exercising Continuous Delivery ways of working where each commit is a potential production release. As you can see, feature switches allows you to commit your changes to version control without necessarily expose them to your end users.

To see this in action, feel free to check out my Togglz example project which uses a simple servlet to demonstrate the behavior.


Tommy Tynjä

Slimmed down immutable infrastructure

Last weekend we had a hackathon at Diabol. The topics somehow related to DevOps and Continuous Delivery. My group of four focused on slim microservices with immutable infrastructure. Since we believe in automated delivery pipelines for software development and infrastructure setup, the next natural step would be to merge these two together. Ideally, one would produce a machine image that contains everything needed to run the current application. The servers would be immutable, since we don’t want anyone doing manual changes to a running environment. Rather, the changes should be checked in to version control and a new server would be created based on the automated build pipeline for the infrastructure.

The problem with traditional machine images running on e.g. VMware or Amazon is that they tend to very large in size, a couple of gigabytes is not an unusual size. Images of that size become cumbersome to work with as they take a long time to create and ship over a network. Therefore it is desirable to keep server images as small as possible, especially since you might create and tear down servers ad-hoc for e.g. test purposes in your delivery pipeline. Linux is a very common server operating system but many Linux distributions are shipped with features that we are very unlikely to ever be using on a server, such as C compilers or utility programs. But since we adopt immutable servers, we don’t even need things as editors, man pages or even ssh!

Docker is an interesting solution for slimmed down infrastructure and full stack machine images which we evaluated during the hackathon. After getting our hands dirty after a couple of hours, we were quite pleased with its capabilities. We’ll definitely keep it on our radar and continue with our evaluation of it.

Since we’re mostly operating in the Java space, I also spent some time looking at how we could save some size on our machine images by potentially slimming down the JVM. Since a delivery pipeline will be triggered several times a day to deploy, test etc, every megabyte saved will increase the pipeline throughput. But why should you slim down the JVM? Well the JVM also contains features (or libraries) that are highly unlikely to ever be used on a server, such as audio, the awt and Swing UI frameworks, JavaFX, fonts, cursor images etc. The standard installation of the Java 8 JRE is around 150 MB. It didn’t take long to shave off a third of that size by removing libraries such as the aforementioned ones. Unfortunately the core library of Java, rt.jar is 66 MB of size, which is a constraint for the minimal possible size of a working JVM (unless you start removing the class files inside it too). Without too much work, I was able to safely remove a third of the size of the standard JRE installation, landing on a bit under 100 MB of size and still run our application. Although this practice might not be suitable for production use of technical or even legal reasons, it’s still interesting to see how much we typically install on our severs although it’ll never be used. The much anticipated project Jigsaw which will introduce modularity to Java SE has been postponed several times. Hopefully it can be incorporated into Java 9, enabling us to decide which modules we actually want to use for our particular use case.

Our conclusion for the time spent on this topic during the hackathon is that Docker is an interesting alternative to traditional machine image solutions, which not only allows, but also encourages slim servers and immutable infrastructure.

Tommy Tynjä

Testing the presence of log messages with java.util.logging

Sometimes there is value in creating a unit test to assert that a specific log message actually gets printed. It might be for audit logs or making sure that system misconfigurations get logged properly. A couple of years ago my colleague Daniel blogged about how to create a custom Log4j appender and to use that in your unit tests to assert the presence of certain log messages. Read about it here.

Today I was resolving an issue in the Arquillian (the open source integration testing framework for Java) codebase. This involved in logging a warning in a certain use case. I obviously wanted to test my code by adding a test case for the different use cases, asserting that the log message got printed out correctly. I’ve used the approach of asserting log messages in unit tests many times in the past, but I’ve always used Log4j in those cases. This time around I was forced to solve the problem for plain java.util.logging (JUL) which Arquillian uses. Fun, as I’m always up for a challenge.

What I did was similar to the log4j approach. I need to add a custom log handler which I attach to the logger in the affected class. I create an outputstream, which I attach to a StreamHandler. I then attach the StreamHandler to the logger. As long as I have a reference to the output stream, I can then get the logged contents and use that in my assertions. Example below using JUnit 4:

private static Logger log = Logger.getLogger(AnnotationDeploymentScenarioGenerator.class.getName()); // matches the logger in the affected class
private static OutputStream logCapturingStream;
private static StreamHandler customLogHandler;

public void attachLogCapturer()
  logCapturingStream = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
  Handler[] handlers = log.getParent().getHandlers();
  customLogHandler = new StreamHandler(logCapturingStream, handlers[0].getFormatter());

public String getTestCapturedLog() throws IOException
  return logCapturingStream.toString();

… then I can use the above methods in my test case:

public void shouldLogWarningForMismatchingArchiveTypeAndFileExtension() throws Exception
  final String expectedLogPart = "unexpected file extension";

  new AnnotationDeploymentScenarioGenerator().generate(
        new TestClass(DeploymentWithMismatchingTypeAndFileExtension.class));

  String capturedLog = getTestCapturedLog();


Tommy Tynjä

Writing integration tests with an in-memory Mongo DB

As I mentioned in my previous post, I’ve been working closely to the document oritented NoSQL database Mongo DB lately. As an advocate of sustainable systems development (test driven development that is), I took the lead in our team for designing tests for our business logic towards Mongo. For relational databases there are a lot of options, a common solution for testing against relational databases is to use an in-memory database such as H2. For NoSQL databases the options are not always as generous from an automated test perspective. Luckily, we found an in-memory version for Mongo DB from Flapdoodle which is easy to use and fits our use case perfectly. If your (Java) code base relies on Maven, just add the following dependency:


Then, in your test class (here based on JUnit), use the provided classes to start an in-memory Mongo DB, preferrably in a @Before method, and tear down the instance in a @After method, as in the example below:

public class TestInMemoryMongo {

    private static final String MONGO_HOST = "localhost";
    private static final int MONGO_PORT = 27777;
    private static final String IN_MEM_CONNECTION_URL = MONGO_HOST + ":" + MONGO_PORT;

    private MongodExecutable mongodExe;
    private MongodProcess mongod;
    private Mongo mongo;

     * Start in-memory Mongo DB process
    public void setup() throws Exception {
        MongodStarter runtime = MongodStarter.getDefaultInstance();
        mongodExe = runtime.prepare(new MongodConfig(Version.V2_0_5, MONGO_PORT, Network.localhostIsIPv6()));
        mongod = mongodExe.start();
        mongo = new Mongo(MONGO_HOST, MONGO_PORT);

     * Shutdown in-memory Mongo DB process
    public void teardown() throws Exception {
        if (mongod != null) {

    public void shouldAssertSomeInteractionWithMongo() {
        // Create a connection to Mongo using the IN_MEM_CONNECTION_URL property
        // Execute some business logic towards Mongo
        // Assert the expected the behaviour

    protected MongoPersistenceContext getMongoPersistenceContext() {
        // Returns an instance of the class containing business logic towards Mongo
        return new MongoPersistenceContext();

… then you have an in-memory Mongo DB available for your test cases. The private member named “mongo” in the example above is of type com.mongodb.Mongo, which you can use for interaction with the Mongo database. As you notice, all you need is basically JUnit och Mongo, nothing more. But life is not always as easy as the simplest examples. In our case, we leverage from EJBs and other components which relies on running inside an container. As I’m contributor to the JBoss Arquillian project, a Java framework for integration tests, I was obviously curious about trying the approach of making the in-memory available when executing tests inside the container. If you use Arquillian already like we do, the transition is smooth. Just make sure to put the in-memory Mongo and Java driver on your classpath. The following Arquillian test extends the JUnit test class above, but with a bean injection for the business class under test:

public class TestInMemoryMongoWithArquillian extends TestInMemoryMongo {

    public static Archive getDeployment() {
        return ShrinkWrap.create(WebArchive.class, "mongo.war")
                .addAsManifestResource(EmptyAsset.INSTANCE, "beans.xml")
                .addAsWebInfResource(new StringAsset("<web-app></web-app>"), "web.xml")

    @Inject MongoPersistenceContext mpc;

    protected MongoPersistenceContext getMongoPersistenceContext() {
        return mpc;

I’ve uploaded a full example project, based on Java 7, Maven, Mongo DB, Arquillian and Apache TomEE (embedded) on GitHub to demonstrate how to use an in-memory Mongo DB in a unit test as well as with Arquillian inside TomEE. This should serve as a good base when starting to write automated tests for your business logic towards Mongo.


Tommy Tynjä

Applying indexes in Mongo DB

For the past year I’ve been consulting at a client where we’ve been using the document oriented NoSQL database Mongo DB in production (currently v2.0.5). Primarily we store PDF documents together with some arbitrary metadata, but in some use cases we also store a lot of completely dynamic documents, where there might be no similar columns shared between documents in the same collection.

For one of our collections, which holds PDF documents in a GridFS structure (~ 1 TB of data/node), we sometimes need to query for documents based on a couple of certain keys. If these keys are not indexed, queries can take a very long time to execute. How indexes are handled are very well explained in the Mongo documentation. Per default, GridFS provides us indexes for the _id, filename + uploadDate fields. To view indexes on the current collection, execute the following command from the Mongo shell:


Ideally, you want your indexes to reside completely within RAM. The following command returns the size of the current index:


To apply a new index for keyX and keyY, execute the following command:

db.myCollection.ensureIndex({"keyX":1, "keyY":1});

Applying the index took roughly about a minute per node in our environment. The index should be displayed when executing db.myCollection.getIndexes();

        "v" : 1,
        "key" : {
                "keyX" : 1,
                "keyY" : 1
        "ns" : "myDatabase.myCollection",
        "name" : "keyX_1_keyY_1"

After applying the index, assure that the total size of the index is still managable (less than avaiable memory). Now, executing a query based on the indexed fields should yield its result much faster:

Tommy Tynjä

Use of generics in EJB 3.1

With EJB 3.1 it is possible to make use of generics in your bean implementations. There are some aspects that needs to be considered though to make sure you use them as intended. It requires basic understanding of how Java generics work.

Imagine the following scenario. You might want to have a business interface such as:

public interface Async<TYPE> {
    public void method(TYPE t);

… and an implementation:

public class AsyncBean implements Async<String> {
    public void method(final String s) {}

You would then like to dependency inject your EJB into another bean such as:

@EJB Async<String> asyncBean;

A problem here is that due to type erasure, you cannot be certain that the injected EJB is of the expected type which will produce a ClassCastException in runtime. Another problem is that the method annotated with @Asynchronous in the bean implementation will not be invoked asynchronously as might be expected. This is due to the method not actually being part of the business interface. The method in the business interface is in fact public void method(final Object s) due to type erasure, which in turn calls the typed method. Therefore the call to the typed method won’t be intercepted and made asynchronous. If the type definition in the AsyncBean class is removed (infers Object type), the call will be asynchronous. One solution to ensure type safety would be to treat the Async interface as a plain interface without the @Local annotation, mark the AsyncBean with @LocalBean (to make sure the bean method is part of the exposed business methods for that bean), and inject an AsyncBean where used. Another solution would be to insert a local interface between the plain interface and the bean implementation:

public interface AsyncLocal extends Async<String> {
    public void method(final String s);

… and then make the AsyncBean implement the AsyncLocal interface instead, and use the AsyncLocal interface at the injection points.

This behaviour might not be all that obvious, even though it makes perfect sense due to how generics are treated in Java. It is also unfortunate that the EJB specification does not clarify the expected behaviour for this use case. The following can be read in the specification, which feels a bit vague:
“3.4.3 Session Bean’s Business Interface
The session bean’s interface is an ordinary Java interface. It contains the business methods of the session bean.”

I’ve created a minimal sample project where the behaviours can be tried out by just running a simple test case written with Arquillian. The test case will be run inside an embedded TomEE container. Thanks to the blazing speed of TomEE, the test runs just as fast as a unit test. The code can be found here, and contains a failing test representing the scenario described above. Apply the proposed soultion to make the test pass.

As demonstrated, there are some caveats which needs to be considered when using generics together with EJBs. Hopefully this article can shed some light on what is happening under the hood.

Tommy Tynjä

The importance of integration testing

I’ve been studying integration testing quite close for the past year, especially since being a contributor to the JBoss Arquillian and ShrinkWrap projects, which target automated enterprise integration testing. This is a part which is almost non-existent in the enterprise today. Sure, if you have > 95% code coverage by unit tests you can be pretty certain that the business logic behaves like it is supposed to. But you are still testing your code in the wrong context. You still need to test your code in your target environment, e.g. how does the code actually behave when run in your application server, with a specific Java version, etc?

Unit tests are great and should be the cornerstone for each application that is developed today. But unit tests alone are not enough. You also need to test your code in the proper context, in the context where it is going to live in for a far longer time than it took to implement and release the first version. You need to test your code in the same environment that is going to be used in production. Why? Imagine a Formula 1 team creating a new aerodynamic part. If their simulations return promising results, they evaluate the part in the wind tunnel. But if the wind tunnel tests turn out good, they don’t put the part onto their race car five minutes before the start of the next race. It sounds like a silly thing to do, but that is exactly what is going on in system development today! The Formula 1 teams test new parts on the test track for days, in the right context – with wind, humidity, heat, stress, endurance, etc. Every parameter playing its part for the new detail that is being tested. Then they carefully analyze the results, before they decide whether this new component fits into the production environment (which is on the car during a Grand Prix weekend).

It’s when we connect pieces together, cogwheels to moving parts, when it gets interesting. How are the pieces working together? Do the cogwheels fit together at all? Is there friction which causes overheating? Can the pieces survive high torque? This is something that is extremely important also in software development, but is often neglected. I’ve been in projects where large teams works in two, three or four week sprints, but at the end of the sprint when all new code is integrated, the artifact doesn’t even deploy! It then usually takes a couple of developers two days just to integrate the code to make it deployable. And when it finally deploys, it doesn’t say anything about if the code works or not. A deployment is just like turning the key when starting a car. Only because the engine starts, it doesn’t guarantee that you can actually drive it. Integration tests should be a part of the continuous feedback cycle. As soon as a part doesn’t fit with its surroundings, you should be notified as soon as possible, not four weeks later.

Integration testing is a broad topic and there are different types of integration tests, which needs be handled differently when incorporated in a deployment pipeline. But that’s a subject for a later blog post. All in all, integration tests are important. If you wan’t to have a streamlined development process, where getting new features into production fast without sacrificing quality, you’ll need to have proper integration testing in place.

Tommy Tynjä

Generate Java code from an existing WSDL with Apache CXF

When developing web services, there are occasions when you would like to generate Java code from an existing WSDL document. You might adopt the contract-first approach or just have an existing web service running on a non-Java platform which you want to migrate to Java. You can then start implementing your service from the generated classes. You can use the Apache CXF wsdl2java tool to generate fully annotated JAX-WS (Java EE 6) compliant Java code. Generating the Java code is as simple as:

apache-cxf-2.6.1\bin$ wsdl2java -p -d /home/tommy/ /home/tommy/webservice.wsdl

… where the -p parameter sets the target package namespace to, -d points to the target directory for the generated files and the last parameter specifies the source WSDL path.

Apache CXF home
Apache CXF wsdl2java reference

Tommy Tynjä