mobile: Rewrite the JNI code for XdsTestServer #33197
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Fredy Wijaya <[email protected]>
fredyw
changed the title
|
/retest |
fredyw
requested review from
RyanTheOptimist,
alyssawilk and
abeyad
as code owners
|
/assign @abeyad |
| /** An xDS test server factory. */ | ||
| public class XdsTestServerFactory { | ||
| /** The instance of {@link XdsTestServer}. */ | ||
| public static class XdsTestServer { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering if it would be better to have the XdsTestServer as a top-level class, outside of XdsTestServerFactory? Same for the other HTTP servers from previous PRs. I think it'll make the code easier to read, but just a personal preference. I consider the XdsTestServer to be a top level construct, not dependent on XdsTestServerFactory. It's just that XdsTestServerFactory gives us XdsTestServer instances
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately it's not possible to do it in Java unless we create two separate files. Having a single file is better IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Another reason Xds|Http|HttpProxy is inside the factory is so that it can have a private constructor. That's because there's no way to manually create the instance without having to use the factory (the handle will need to come from the native code). If we were about to make Xds|Http|HttpProxy outside, the constructor would have to be public. IOW, we want the Factory to be the only way to create the instance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah ok, yeah agree, this is better then, thanks for the explanation!
Rewrite JNI code for XdsTestServer Signed-off-by: Fredy Wijaya <[email protected]>
This PR rewrites the JNI implementation for
XdsTestServerto follow a similar style asHttpTestServerandHttpProxyTestServer. This PR also eliminates the use of YAML in the test.Risk Level: low (test only)
Testing: unit test
Docs Changes: n/a
Release Notes: n/a
Platform Specific Features: n/a