On 3 March 2012 00:14, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Sebb, > Thanks very much for taking some time to review. > > Regarding docs usage update, as there is no impact at all on usage is there > something to update ?
http://jmeter.apache.org/usermanual/component_reference.html#HTTP_Proxy_Server > A place to update would be the document jmeter_tutorial.pdf linked under > "Extending JMeter". > What's the official way to update it ? Using Open Office and editing > jmeter_tutorial_mike.sxw or is there a better way ? Yes, edit the sxw file. > Thanks > Regards > Philippe > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:28 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2 March 2012 12:24, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > In french there is a quotation that says "Qui ne dit mot consent" :-) >> >> [That's called "lazy consensus" here, at least when applied to votes.] >> >> > Does it mean you're OK for me committing the issue >> > 52674<https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52674>or you >> > want to take some more time to review ? >> >> Just had another look. >> >> As far as I can tell, the changes only affect the Proxy code. >> In which case, it cannot affect existing test plans; the worst that >> can happen is that the Proxy behaves differently from before. >> I don't think that would matter much. >> >> I don't object to the code being committed. >> >> Please ensure that the Proxy usage docs are updated as necessary. >> >> > Thank you all. >> > Regards >> > Philippe >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Philippe Mouawad < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Hello, >> >> To clarify a little bit what this enhancement brings: >> >> >> >> Today the Proxy can record standard HTTP sessions that are textual, see >> >> the Mail of 6 feb 2012 >> >> "It was designed for recording standard HTTP sessions; these are not >> >> binary" >> >> And particularly Issue 49039 >> >> >> >> >> >> Although it is limited to Textual HTTP Sessions, lot of work in it can >> be >> >> reused to record AMF Sessions , Silverlight sessions or other binary >> >> protocols. >> >> >> >> The idea behind the enhancement is to propose the following: >> >> >> >> - Plugin implementor will be able by implementing a SampleCreator >> >> subclass to reuse 90% of proxy feature without duplicating lot of >> code: >> >> - All Header work >> >> - Sampler transmission to a Target once it's created , >> >> - ie, all the work done in patched HttpRequestHdr which is big + >> >> the ability to customize each of the methods in >> DefaultSamplerCreator (as >> >> Struts Base class was build for example) >> >> >> >> Another idea is to be able to customize the created Sampler, a direct >> use >> >> I see is for example is during a recording of a JSON, GWT or REST >> >> protocols, I as a user had to go on each sampler after recording and >> switch >> >> to RAW POST BODY (which means 40 clicks for 20 samplers), with current >> >> enhancement I can just subclass DefaultSamplerCreator and register it >> for >> >> GWT Content type and just set the property to switch it to RAW POST >> BODY. >> >> >> >> Hope it's clearer. >> >> Regards >> >> Philippe >> >> >> >> Today the Proxy feature can only be used to record HTTP Textual >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Philippe Mouawad < >> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hello, >> >>> I submitted a patch for 52674< >> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52674> >> >>> Hope you can have a look at it soon. >> >>> >> >>> I didn't update Tests yet, if you think it's OK then I will update >> them. >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> Philippe >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Philippe Mouawad < >> >>> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer, >> >>>> Did you have time to look at: >> >>>> >> >>>> - 52618 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52618> >> >>>> >> >>>> Do you think patch should be applied ? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Also I would like to have your opinion regarding : >> >>>> >> >>>> - 52674 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52674> >> >>>> >> >>>> I started an implementation, should I provide a patch or commit it >> >>>> directly ? >> >>>> >> >>>> My idea is the following: >> >>>> >> >>>> - Either introduce 2 interfaces: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> 1. SamplerFactory with following method: >> >>>> 1. createSampler(String contentType) => Called in >> >>>> HttpRequestHdr#getSampler() >> >>>> 2. SamplerCustomizer with following method: >> >>>> 1. customizeSampler(HttpSamplerBase sampler) => Called in >> >>>> HttpRequestHdr#getSampler() >> >>>> 2. fillBody(byte[] rawPostBody) => Called in >> >>>> HttpRequestHdr#getSampler() >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> - Or introduce only one SamplerProvider: >> >>>> - createSampler(String contentType) => Called in >> >>>> HttpRequestHdr#getSampler() >> >>>> - customizeSampler(HttpSamplerBase sampler) => Called in >> >>>> HttpRequestHdr#getSampler() >> >>>> - fillBody(byte[] rawPostBody) => Called in >> >>>> HttpRequestHdr#getSampler(): >> >>>> - Default implementation would do what is done today inside >> if >> >>>> ((!HTTPConstants.CONNECT.equals(getMethod())) && >> >>>> (!HTTPConstants.GET.equals(method))) { >> >>>> - Other protocols would handle it another way >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Regards. >> >>>> Philippe Mouawad. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Cordialement. >> >>> Philippe Mouawad. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Cordialement. >> >> Philippe Mouawad. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Cordialement. >> > Philippe Mouawad. >> > > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad.
