Business Logic and the Services Layer - Continuous Enterprise Development in Java (2014)

Continuous Enterprise Development in Java (2014)

Chapter 7. Business Logic and the Services Layer

The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.

— Mahatma Gandhi

The code we’ve developed and tested up to this point has dealt with data: organizing, accessing, mutating, and transforming it into formats more comfortable to us as application developers. We’ve mentioned that these are the nouns of our GeekSeek project; now it’s time to put these to some good use and take action.

Business logic governs the behaviors that power our applications. As compared with more generic (and cross-cutting) concerns that can be abstracted—security, transactions, object-relational mapping, resource management—business logic lies at the heart of our projects. It is unique to our needs, and no one else can write it for us.

That said, the cross-cutting concerns just mentioned (and many more!) are all commonly demanded by our business needs. For instance, imagine we have a series of services, each of which needs to be accessed by an authenticated and authorized user, and in the context of a transaction. If we were diligently applying proper modularization and encapsulation, we might implement separate functions for the transactional and security enforcement, and then call these from our services.

A glaring problem with this approach is that, although we’ve nicely extracted out the logic for our security and transactions for reuse, we must still manually invoke them, sprinkling these method calls at the head and foot of every function requiring their use. Additionally, we may have to pass around contextual objects that know about the state of the current user or transactional registration (though in practice, these are commonly associated with a Thread, and thus are able to fly under the visible API radar in an obfuscated context).

Things get more complicated when we introduce dependent services. A UserRegistration function may in turn call many finer-grained services like SendEmail, PutUserInDatabase, and GenerateHashOfPassword. This composition is desirable because it separates concerns, but we’re left with the problem of looking up or locating each of these disparate services from UserRegistration. Ultimately this adds to the “plumbing” code, which provides no benefit to us aside from hooking our cleanly decoupled modules together. Although this has historically been addressed by employing a technique known as the Service Locator Pattern, for reasons we’ll soon see, this is a largely outdated and inferior approach.

A more subtle, yet very important, issue that arises with pure POJO programming in a multiuser environment is one of shared state. Consider the following code:

public class UserService {

/** Cached flag denoting if our current user has logged in **/

private boolean isLoggedIn;

public boolean authenticate(final String userName,

final String password){

// First check if we're already logged in


return true;


// Else hash the password, check against the hash

// in the database, and return true if and

// only if they match

/** Omitted for brevity **/



This UserService is clearly meant to be associated with a current user session, and thus has what we call conversational scope confined to that session. When writing manual POJO services, the onus is upon us as developers to ensure that this is enforced; imagine if UserB were to come along and receive the object for which UserA had already set isLoggedIn to true? Scope confinement is vitally important to the integrity of our system, and we have to be very careful when rolling our own solutions.

In this chapter we’ll be examining each of these complications and a proposed solution when tackling the testable development of a common, and seemingly innocuous, business requirement: sending email from a Java EE-based application.

Use Cases and Requirements

As always, before digging into the implementation, we’ll define some requirements based on our desired use cases.

Send Email on New User Signup

Web-based applications offer few avenues to push information to their users once offline; perhaps the most prevalent is through the use of email. We see this in a variety of user stories: “Confirm Email Address,” “Reset Password,” and “Welcome New User” are all subject lines we’ve grown to expect from the sites we use. It’s fitting, then, that we devise a simple strategy to send email from our application that can be easily reused by the more coarsely grained operations.

Our GeekSeek application will therefore introduce the requirement: “Send an Email to the New User Upon Successful Signup.”

At first blush, this seems like a fairly trivial problem to solve. The JavaMail API is straightforward enough to use (though a bit dated), and is included as part of the Java EE Platform.

Unfortunately, there are many issues to consider beyond the boilerplate code required to send the email itself:

Should we block (wait) while the mail message is sent to the SMTP server?

Connecting to an external service can take some time, depending on how it handles open connections. The delivery of the email isn’t designed to be immediate, so there’s not much sense forcing the user to wait while we connect to an SMTP server, construct a MimeMessage, and send.

What if sending the email fails? Should the enclosing user registration action that called the email service fail, too?

Sending the email is, in our case, part of a welcome operation. A new user registration doesn’t strictly need this to succeed because we won’t be relying on email to validate the user’s identity. Still, we’d like to make every available effort to ensure that the email goes through, independent of the user registration action. And we’d like to have some notification and options to handle emails that were attempted to be sent, but have failed.

How do we test to ensure that the emails we’ve sent are received? How do we validate that the email’s contents are correct?

Even if we don’t dispatch the communication with the SMTP server to a new Thread, interacting with this external process makes for an asynchronous action. Asynchronous testing is not always the simplest process to set up, but this does not excuse us from the responsibility of ensuring that our email service works as designed.


We’ll begin our example with the construction of a generic SMTPMailService. As the name implies, its job will be to act as our Java interface to perform SMTP operations. Specifically, we’ll write this to send email.

First we’ll make a self-explanatory value object to encapsulate the fields needed to send an email message. This is implemented as a mutable builder for ease of use:

public class MailMessageBuilder implements Serializable {

private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;

private static final String[] EMPTY = new String[]{};

private String from;

private String subject;

private String body;

private String contentType;

private final Collection<String> toAddresses = new HashSet<String>();

public MailMessageBuilder from(final String from)

throws IllegalArgumentException {

if (from == null || from.length() == 0) {

throw new IllegalArgumentException("from address must be specified");


this.from = from;

return this;


// Other fluent API methods omitted for brevity; see full source for details

MailMessageBuilder has a build method that can then return an immutable view:

public MailMessage build() throws IllegalStateException {

// Validate

if (from == null || from.length() == 0) {

throw new IllegalStateException("from address must be specified");


if (toAddresses.size() == 0) {

throw new IllegalStateException(

"at least one to address must be specified");


if (subject == null || subject.length() == 0) {

throw new IllegalStateException("subject must be specified");


if (body == null || body.length() == 0) {

throw new IllegalStateException("body must be specified");


if (contentType == null || contentType.length() == 0) {

throw new IllegalStateException("contentType must be specified");


// Construct immutable object and return

return new MailMessage(from, toAddresses.toArray(EMPTY),

subject, body, contentType);


It’s this immutable MailMessageBuilder.MailMessage that will be safely passed between our services.

With our value object defined, we can now create our SMTPMailService. We know that we’ll need to connect to some external SMTP server via the JavaMail API, and Java EE allows injection of these via the @Resource annotation (though the mechanics of exactly where some services are bound is vendor-dependent). Also, we know that this SMTPMailService is meant to be shared by all users running the application, and won’t have any session-specific state. For these reasons, we’ll implement the SMTPMailService as a Singleton Session EJB. Note that a Stateless Session Bean (for use of a pool of instances) might work in an equally appropriate fashion:



@TransactionAttribute(value = TransactionAttributeType.SUPPORTS)

public class SMTPMailService {

This is our Singleton bean declaration. Of particular note is the TransactionAttributeType.SUPPORTS value for @TransactionAttribute, which will apply to all business methods of this EJB.

An SMTP server is an external resource that is not transactionally aware. Therefore, we’ll have to make note of any exceptions and ensure that if we want a transaction rolled back, we either explicitly tell that to the TransactionManager or throw an unchecked exception, which will signal the EJB container to mark any currently executing transaction for rollback.

We’re making a general-purpose SMTP service here, so we may not always know the appropriate actions to take with regard to transactions. The default for EJB is @TransactionAttributeType.MANDATORY, which creates a transaction if one is not already in flight. That’s not really appropriate here: the SMTP server with which we interact is not transactional; it would be silly to sacrifice the overhead of starting a transaction when we’re not even dealing with a resource that will respect its semantics! @TransactionAttributeType.SUPPORTS, which we’ve used here, will accept existing transactions if one is in play, or do nothing if the service is invoked outside of a transactional context.

Now we need to define a method to do the dirty work: accept our MailMessage as a parameter and send it along to the SMTP server. The JavaMail API will act as our conduit to connect to the SMTP server, so we’ll take advantage of Java EE’s @Resource annotation to inject some relevant supporting services into our SMTPMailService.

With our service and class declaration handled, we’re now ready to inject the external hooks we’ll need to send email. The Java EE container will provide these for us:

@Resource(lookup = SMTPMailServiceConstants.JNDI_BIND_NAME_MAIL_SESSION)

private javax.mail.Session mailSession;

@Resource(lookup = "java:/ConnectionFactory")

private javax.jms.ConnectionFactory connectionFactory;

@Resource(lookup = SMTPMailServiceConstants.JNDI_BIND_NAME_SMTP_QUEUE)

private javax.jms.Queue smtpQueue;

The @Resource.lookup attribute has vendor-specific function but most often maps to a JNDI name. This use case has been coded to run specifically on the JBoss family of application servers, so some adjustment to these values may be necessary in your environment. To that end we’ve centralized some JNDI names in a small interface:

public interface SMTPMailServiceConstants {


* Name in JNDI to which the SMTP {@link javax.mail.Session} will be bound


String JNDI_BIND_NAME_MAIL_SESSION = "java:jboss/mail/GeekSeekSMTP";


* Name in JNDI to which the SMTP Queue is bound


String JNDI_BIND_NAME_SMTP_QUEUE = "java:/jms/queue/GeekSeekSMTP";


Note that we have put into place a field called smtpQueue, of type javax.jms.Queue. This is how we’ll handle two of the “hidden” problems with testable development of sending email raised earlier.

First, sending a message to a JMS Queue is a “fire and forget” operation. Once the message is received by the queue (which is in process, unlike our production SMTP server), control is returned to the caller and the handling of the message is processed asynchronously. If we create a listener to pull messages off the queue and send emails, we won’t have to wait for this process to complete. This gives us asynchrony for free.

The other tangible benefit to using a JMS Queue to send messages is in the guaranteed processing afforded by JMS. If there’s a temporary error in sending the email, for instance a connection problem with the remote SMTP server, the messaging server will dutifully retry (as configured) a number of times. This process will even survive server restarts; if for some reason all of these retries fail to yield a successful result (again, after some configured number of tries or timeout), messages can be forwarded to the DLQ (dead-letter queue) for manual inspection by system administrators later. This gives us some assurance that we won’t lose messages we intended to send, and we also won’t have to fail our user registration process entirely if there’s some issue with sending the welcome email.

In WildFly/JBoss AS7/JBoss EAP, we deploy a JMS Queue with the deployment descriptor geekseek-smtp-queue-jms.xml (the filename may be anything located in the EJB JAR’s META-INF and ending with the suffix -jms.xml):

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<messaging-deployment xmlns="urn:jboss:messaging-deployment:1.0">



<jms-queue name="GeekSeekSMTP">

<entry name="jms/queue/GeekSeekSMTP"/>





This will bind a new JMS Queue to the JNDI address java:/jms/queue/GeekSeekSMTP, which we referenced earlier in the @Resource.lookup attribute.

With our supporting services and resources hooked in and available to our EJB, we can code the sendMail method. As noted before, this is likely the least interesting part of the use case, even though it’s technically the code that drives the entire feature:

public void sendMail(final MailMessageBuilder.MailMessage mailMessage)

throws IllegalArgumentException {

// Precondition check

if (mailMessage == null) {

throw new IllegalArgumentException("Mail message must be specified");


try {

// Translate

final MimeMessage mime = new MimeMessage(mailSession);

final Address from = new InternetAddress(mailMessage.from);

final int numToAddresses =;

final Address[] to = new InternetAddress[numToAddresses];

for (int i = 0; i < numToAddresses; i++) {

to[i] = new InternetAddress([i]);



mime.setRecipients(Message.RecipientType.TO, to);


mime.setContent(mailMessage.body, mailMessage.contentType);


} // Puke on error

catch (final javax.mail.MessagingException e) {

throw new RuntimeException("Error in sending " + mailMessage, e);



There’s nothing special going on here: we translate our own value object MailMessageBuilder.MailMessage into fields required by JavaMail’s MimeMessage, and send. We’ll wrap any errors in a RuntimeException to be handled by the EJB container (resulting in transaction rollback if one is being used).

This method, of course, is synchronous up until the mail message is delivered to the SMTP server. We noted earlier that it’s likely better in a multiuser environment to queue the mail for sending such that we don’t have to wait on interaction with this external resource, so we’ll also supply aqueueMailForDelivery method to send our desired message to a JMS Queue:

public void queueMailForDelivery(

final MailMessageBuilder.MailMessage mailMessage)

throws IllegalArgumentException {

// Precondition check

if (mailMessage == null) {

throw new IllegalArgumentException("Mail message must be specified");


try {

final Connection connection = connectionFactory.createConnection();

final javax.jms.Session session = connection

.createSession(false, javax.jms.Session.AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE);

final MessageProducer producer = session.createProducer(smtpQueue);

final ObjectMessage jmsMessage =



} catch (final JMSException jmse) {

throw new RuntimeException(

"Could not deliver mail message to the outgoing queue", jmse);



Sending the JMS message doesn’t fully get our mail delivered, however; it just sends it to a JMS Queue. We still need a component to pull this JMS message off the queue, unwrap the MailMessage it contains, and call upon our sendMail method to send the mail. For this we can again turn to EJB, which provides listeners to any JCA (Java Connector Architecture) backend by means of the Message-Driven Bean (MDB). Our MDB will be configured as a JMS Queue listener, and is defined as:


@MessageDriven(activationConfig = {

@ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName = "acknowledgeMode",

propertyValue = "Auto-acknowledge"),

@ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName = "destinationType",

propertyValue = "javax.jms.Queue"),

@ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName = "destination",

propertyValue = SMTPMailServiceConstants.JNDI_BIND_NAME_SMTP_QUEUE)})

public class SMTPMessageConsumer implements MessageListener {

The ActivationConfigProperty annotations are in place to tell the EJB container how to connect to the backing JCA resource, in this case our queue. Because MBDs are business components just like EJB Session Beans, we have injection at our disposal, which we’ll use to obtain a reference back to the SMTPMailService:


private SMTPMailService mailService;

Now, our SMTPMessageConsumer is registered by the EJB container as a listener on our queue; when a new message arrives, we’ll receive a callback to the onMessage method. By implementing this, we can unwrap the MailMessage and send it directly to the SMTPMailService to be sent:


public void onMessage(final javax.jms.Message message) {

// Casting and unwrapping

final ObjectMessage objectMessage;

try {

objectMessage = ObjectMessage.class.cast(message);

} catch (final ClassCastException cce) {

throw new RuntimeException(

"Incorrect message type sent to object message consumer; got:"

+ message.getClass().getSimpleName(), cce);


final MailMessageBuilder.MailMessage mailMessage;

try {

final Object obj = objectMessage.getObject();

mailMessage = MailMessageBuilder.MailMessage.class.cast(obj);

} catch (final JMSException jmse) {

throw new RuntimeException("Could not unwrap JMS Message", jmse);

} catch (final ClassCastException cce) {

throw new RuntimeException("Expected message contents of type "

+ MailMessageBuilder.MailMessage.class.getSimpleName(), cce);


// Send the mail



These comprise all the working pieces of the business logic supporting this feature. However, the true challenge lies in verifying that everything works as expected.

Requirement Test Scenarios

Testing the SMTP service will involve a few moving pieces.

A Test-Only SMTP Server

The JavaMail API nicely abstracts out connections to an SMTP server, and we’ve built our SMTPMailService to pull any configured JavaMail Session from JNDI. This gives us the option to provide a test-only SMTP server for use in development and staging environments with only configuration changes differing between these and the production setup. Although it’s true that this text has generally discouraged the use of mock objects and services, that’s a guideline. In this instance, we’ll absolutely need a hook that differs from production in order to validate that emails are being delivered as expected. Otherwise, we’d be using a real SMTP service that could send emails out to real email addresses.

For our own testing, we’ll aim not to change the code in our SMTPMailService, but to configure it to point to an embeddable SMTP server: one that will allow us to see which messages were received and do some assertion checking to be sure the contents are as expected. For this we look to the SubEtha project, an open source Java SMTP server that fulfills our requirements nicely.

We’ll let our SMTP server run in the same process as our application server and tests; this will allow us to use shared memory and set guards to handle the asynchrony implicit in dispatching messages to an SMTP server.

A nice technique is to install SubEtha to come up alongside our application. In Java EE, the mechanism for creating application-start events is to implement a PostConstruct callback on a Singleton Session EJB that’s configured to eagerly load. We do this by defining a new service:


import javax.ejb.LocalBean;

import javax.ejb.Singleton;

import javax.ejb.Startup;

import javax.ejb.TransactionAttribute;


* Test fixture; installs an embedded SMTP Server on startup, shuts it down on

* undeployment. Allows for pluggable handling of incoming messages for use in

* testing.






public class SMTPServerService {

The @Startup annotation will trigger this EJB bean instance to be created alongside application start, which in turn will lead to the container invoking the PostConstruct method:

private SMTPServer server;

private final PluggableReceiveHandlerMessageListener listener =

new PluggableReceiveHandlerMessageListener();


public void startup() throws Exception {

server = new SMTPServer(new SimpleMessageListenerAdapter(listener));





This gives us an opportunity to create a new SMTPServer instance, register a handler (which defines what will be done when a new message is received), and start it on our configured port on localhost. The companion PreDestroy callback method provides for graceful shutdown of this server when the application is undeployed and the Singleton EJB instance is brought out of service:


public void shutdown() throws Exception {



In our test SMTPServerService, we also define an inner TestHandler interface; the simple type our tests can implement, containing one method called handle(String):

interface TestReceiveHandler {

void handle(String data) throws AssertionFailedError;


The TestReceiveHandler will serve as our extension point for tests to apply behavior fitting their requirements. We do this via the setHandler(TestReceiveHandler) method on our test EJB:

public void setHandler(final TestReceiveHandler handler) {



Pluggable handling in our SMTP server can then be set up on the fly by tests. When a new message is received by the SMTP server, our listener will read in the contents, log them for our convenience, then call upon our TestReceiveHandler:

private class PluggableReceiveHandlerMessageListener

implements SimpleMessageListener {

private TestReceiveHandler handler;


public boolean accept(String from, String recipient) {

return true;



public void deliver(final String from,

final String recipient, final InputStream data)

throws TooMuchDataException, IOException {

// Get contents as String

byte[] buffer = new byte[4096];

int read;

final StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder();

while ((read = != -1) {

s.append(new String(buffer, 0, read, CHARSET));


final String contents = s.toString();

if (log.isLoggable(Level.INFO)) {"Received SMTP event: " + contents);


// Pluggable handling

if (handler == null) {

log.warning("No SMTP receive handler has been associated");

} else {




void setHandler(final TestReceiveHandler handler) {

this.handler = handler;



The Test

Our test will again use Arquillian for the container interaction as we’ve seen before, but it will require no extra extensions. Therefore, the declaration here is fairly simple:



public class SMTPMailServiceTestCase {

Unlike in previous examples, this time we’ll handle deployment and undeployment operations manually. This is because we’d first like to configure the server before deployment, but after it has started. Because Arquillian currently does not provide for a lifecycle operation between the server startup and deployment, we’ll use ordered test methods to clearly delineate which actions should be handled when. This is what we’d like to see:

§ Server start (handled automatically by Arquillian)

§ Server configuration

§ Deployment

§ Test methods

§ Undeployment

§ Reset server configuration

§ Server shutdown

We do manual deployment in Arquillian by associating a name with the deployment, then creating a @Deployment method just like we’ve seen before.

The following code is used to define the deployment:


* Name of the deployment for manual operations


private static final String DEPLOYMENT_NAME = "mailService";


* Deployment to be tested; will be manually deployed/undeployed

* such that we can configure the server first


* @return


@Deployment(managed = false, name = DEPLOYMENT_NAME)

public static WebArchive getApplicationDeployment() {

final File[] subethamailandDeps = Maven.resolver().



final WebArchive war = ShrinkWrap.create(WebArchive.class)


.addClasses(SMTPMailService.class, MailMessageBuilder.class,


SMTPMessageConsumer.class, SMTPServerService.class)

.addAsWebInfResource(EmptyAsset.INSTANCE, "beans.xml")



return war;


Of special note is the Deployment.managed attribute, which when set to false will tell Arquillian that we’ll handle the act of deployment on our own. The preceding method constructs a deployment with the following layout:




























As you can see, the SubEtha project and its dependencies are dutifully added to the WEB-INF/lib folder because we’ve requested ShrinkWrap Resolver to fetch these as configured from the project POM.

With the deployment accounted for, we can inject both the SMTPMailService EJB and our test SMTPServerService EJB into the test:


* Service which sends email to a backing SMTP Server



private SMTPMailService mailService;


* Hook into the embeddable SMTP server so we can customize its handling from

* the tests



private SMTPServerService smtpServerService;

We can also inject a hook to manually deploy and undeploy our deployment, such that we can configure the server before our @Deployment is sent to the server. We do this with the @ArquillianResource annotation:


private Deployer deployer;

At this point, Arquillian is set to run and start the server, and the deployment is defined but not yet deployed. Next on our agenda is to configure the server; we’ll ensure this is done in the proper order by creating a test method to run first by using Arquillian’s @InSequence annotation. Also, we don’t want this test method running inside the container (as is the default), but rather on the client process, so we’ll flag this method with @RunAsClient:


* Lifecycle events; implemented as tests, though in truth they perform no

* assertions. Used to configure the server and deploy/undeploy the @Deployment

* archive at the appropriate times.



@InSequence(value = 1)


public void configureAppServer() throws Exception {


* First configure a JavaMail Session for the Server to bind into JNDI; this

* will be used by our MailService EJB. In a production environment, we'll

* likely have configured the server before it was started to point to a real

* SMTP server.


// Code omitted for brevity, not really relevant to

// our objectives here


* With the config all set and dependencies in place, now we can deploy




Yes, the preceding code is technically implemented as a test method, and it’d be much cleaner to fully separate out our tests from our harness. Future versions of Arquillian may provide more fine-grained handling of lifecycle events to accommodate that kind of separation, but for the time being, this is our mechanism to configure running servers before issuing a deployment.

Now with server configuration completed and our application deployed, we’re free to write our test logic.

The test is fairly simple from a conceptual standpoint, though the steps we’ve taken to achieve it have admittedly involved some more work. We’d like to:

§ Construct a mail message

§ Set a handler on the test SMTP service to ensure the email is in the proper form, then signal to the test that we’re ready to proceed

§ Send the email asynchronously

§ Wait on the handler to let us know that the message was received and that we can now proceed

The test logic looks like this:

@InSequence(value = 2)


public void testSmtpAsync() {

// Set the body of the email to be sent

final String body = "This is a test of the async SMTP Service";

// Define a barrier for us to wait upon while email is sent through the

// JMS Queue

final CyclicBarrier barrier = new CyclicBarrier(2);

// Set a handler which will ensure the body was received properly

smtpServerService.setHandler(new SMTPServerService.TestReceiveHandler() {


public void handle(final String contents) throws

AssertionFailedError {

try {

// Perform assertion


"message received does not contain body sent in email",


// Should probably be the second and last to arrive, but this

// Thread can block indefinitely w/ no timeout needed. If

// the test waiting on the barrier times out, it'll trigger a

// test failure and undeployment of the SMTP Service


} catch (final InterruptedException e) {

// Swallow, this would occur if undeployment were triggered

// because the test failed (and we'd get a proper

// AssertionFailureError on the client side)

} catch (final BrokenBarrierException e) {

throw new RuntimeException("Broken test setup", e);




// Construct and send the message async

final MailMessageBuilder.MailMessage message =

new MailMessageBuilder().from("")





// Wait on the barrier until the message is received by the SMTP

// server (pass) or the test times out (failure)

try {

barrier.await(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

} catch (final InterruptedException e) {

throw new RuntimeException("Broken test setup", e);

} catch (final BrokenBarrierException e) {

throw new RuntimeException("Broken test setup", e);

} catch (final TimeoutException e) {

// If the SMTP server hasn't processed the message in the allotted

// time

"Test did not receive confirmation message in the allotted time");



Walking through this, we see that first we define the subject of the email to be sent. Then we create a java.util.concurrent.CyclicBarrier initialized to a count of 2; this will be the mutual waiting point between the test and the SMTP server to coordinate that both parties have completed their actions and that control should not continue until each caller (Thread) has arrived at this waiting point.

The handler will perform our assertions to validate the message contents, then wait at the barrier until the test is done with its processing.

Meanwhile, the test will send the email via the SMTPMailService, then wait for the handler to receive the mail message and carry through the logic we put in place.

When both the test client and the handler arrive at the CyclicBarrier and no AssertionErrors or other issues have cropped up, we know that we’re free to proceed; the test method can continue its execution until invocation is complete and it reports a success.

Finally, we need to be sure to undeploy the archive (remember, we opted for manual deployment this time around) and reset the server’s configuration. Again, we’ll run this code in the client/test process:


@InSequence(value = 3)


public void resetAppServerConfig()

throws Exception



// Server config code omitted for brevity,

// not really relevant to our objectives here


This example serves to illustrate a common and often undertested aspect of enterprise development. Though the techniques we’ve applied here deal with external, non-transactional resources, asynchronous calling, and server configurations, this should serve as proof that even difficult cases can be adequately tested given a little thought and effort. It’s our belief that this will pay dividends in avoiding production runtime errors and peace of mind in being armed with one more weapon in the battle to maintain a comprehensive, automated test suite.