Well, there would be two instances of ATS running, one as the "server" and another as the test object. I think the bigger problem is that your testing is much less reliable, since errors could get dropped between the two instances of the same software, or be hard to track down. You get better results with different code bases interacting, because the error tend to be different. Is the micro server maintenance that much of a burden? As far as I know, it's mostly been about performance tweaks rather than normal maintenance.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 8:21 AM Miles Libbey <mlib...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Walt- > Since ATS is a proxy cache, this would prevent testing of proxying, > revalidation, and even many initial cache writes (chunked encoding, > read-while-write...). > > miles > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:01 PM Walt Karas > <wka...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > For testing, should we replace the Microserver with a dedicated instance > of > > traffic_server that we populate with PUSH requests? It would be one less > > thing to maintain. >
