| chrismair | 00dc7bd | 2014-05-11 21:21:28 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | --------------------------------------------------
|
| 2 | FakeFtpServer versus StubFtpServer
|
| 3 | --------------------------------------------------
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 | FakeFtpServer or StubFtpServer?
|
| 6 | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 | The <<MockFtpServer>> project includes two separate <mock> implementations of an FTP Server. Which one you
|
| 9 | use is dependent on what kind of FTP scenario(s) you wish to simulate, and what level of control you need
|
| 10 | over exact server replies.
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 | * FakeFtpServer
|
| 13 | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 | <<FakeFtpServer>> provides a high-level abstraction for an FTP Server and is suitable for most testing
|
| 16 | and simulation scenarios. You define a filesystem (internal, in-memory) containing an arbitrary set of
|
| 17 | files and directories. These files and directories can (optionally) have associated access permissions.
|
| 18 | You also configure a set of one or more user accounts that control which users can login to the FTP server,
|
| 19 | and their home (default) directories. The user account is also used when assigning file and directory
|
| 20 | ownership for new files.
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 | <<FakeFtpServer>> processes FTP client requests and responds with reply codes and reply messages
|
| 23 | consistent with its configuration and the contents of its internal filesystem, including file and
|
| 24 | directory permissions, if they have been configured.
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 | <<FakeFtpServer>> can be fully configured programmatically or within a
|
| 27 | {{{http://www.springframework.org/}Spring Framework}} or other dependency-injection container.
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 | See the {{{./fakeftpserver-features.html}FakeFtpServer Features and Limitations}} page for more information on
|
| 30 | which features and scenarios are supported.
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 | * StubFtpServer
|
| 33 | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 | <<StubFtpServer>> is a "stub" implementation of an FTP server. It supports the main FTP commands by
|
| 36 | implementing command handlers for each of the corresponding low-level FTP server commands (e.g. RETR,
|
| 37 | DELE, LIST). These <CommandHandler>s can be individually configured to return custom data or reply codes,
|
| 38 | allowing simulation of a complete range of both success and failure scenarios. The <CommandHandler>s can
|
| 39 | also be interrogated to verify command invocation data such as command parameters and timestamps.
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 | <<StubFtpServer>> works out of the box with reasonable defaults, but can be fully configured programmatically
|
| 42 | or within a {{{http://www.springframework.org/}Spring Framework}} or other dependency-injection container.
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 | See the {{{./stubftpserver-features.html}StubFtpServer Features and Limitations}} page for more information on
|
| 45 | which features and scenarios are supported.
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 | * So, Which One Should I Use?
|
| 48 | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 | In general, if your testing and simulation needs are pretty straightforward, then using <<FakeFtpServer>> is
|
| 51 | probably the best choice. See the {{{./fakeftpserver-features.html}FakeFtpServer Features and Limitations}} page
|
| 52 | for more information on which features and scenarios are supported.
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 | Some reasons to use <<StubFtpServer>> include:
|
| 55 |
|
| 56 | * If you need to simulate an FTP server scenario not supported by <<FakeFtpServer>>.
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 | * You want to test a very specific and/or limited FTP scenario. In this case, the setup of the
|
| 59 | <<StubFtpServer>> might be simpler -- you don't have to setup fake files and directories and user accounts.
|
| 60 |
|
| 61 | * You are more comfortable with configuring and using the lower-level FTP server command reply codes and behavior.
|