I disagree about scripting, but I agree on possible requests for additions of other jars.
So Ok for not packaging groovy in it. But I suggest we add something like this to changes and best - practices: - For intensive load testing, the recommended scripting language is one that implements Compilable. Groovy is one of them, Beanshell, not Jacascript do as of release date. Regards Philippe On Wednesday, July 17, 2013, van Dalen, Andre wrote: > In my view, most of the time scripting is not really needed (I have not > used it for our load-tests ever) > most of the time you can get the same result by preparing a csv file > (using perl, python, etc) and read that > into the variable(s) that would be set by your script. If needed you can > put the randomizing step in the script > that starts the loadtest before jmeter is called. > > The example Phillipe gives can be done with standard jmeter without > scripting and without using a csv file > by placing the array of values into a jmeter variable and picking a random > value from that in a regexp extractor > for instance. > > For what it's worth I side with Sebb on this one, it is easy enough to get > the Groovy jar when you install > jmeter. It is a one-time activity, and before you know it, people will > propose adding JRuby, Jython etc :-) > > regards, Andre > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Lade [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] > Sent: 17 July 2013 08:50 > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: AW: Groovy > > > Sorry for my intervention again, but as Philippe wrote, in our experience > also there is no way to handle a complex load test without scripting. Yes, > we need less scripting, but we need it. > > And, as I already mentioned, in an external high load environment (take " > http://blazemeter.com/"; for example) You cannot ship Java-Tests or own > Java-Plugins to the load servers, but scripts. > However, we don't care about integrating groovy, we just need fast running > scripts, one or the other way. > > VG Danny > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Philippe Mouawad [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 23:14 > > An: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > Betreff: Re: Groovy > > > > But sebb, > > For me, Scripting is not for prototyping in my experience. > > In the last 10 Load Testing missions I made recently I always had to > > script at some point. > > I remember packaging a JAR years ago, it is more intended to > > developpers and takes more configuration than scripting. > > It is really much easier to script than package a Jar with classes no ? > > > > Also with syntax coloring we bring a great enhancement on it, so why > > not make it efficient by default ? > > > > Also Groovy+Caching has nearly same performances as classes inside a Jar. > > > > We should make performances great by default and not rely on users > > tune or use the best option, don't you think so ? > > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
