Hello,

+1 for me to release a 2.13 version. (I can act as RM)
+1 too for a new property to disable RSTA on Logger panel before the new
release.

Milamber

On 25/01/2015 00:20, sebb wrote:
> OK to name it 2.13 and to release it.
>
> Given that there have been some issues with using RSyntaxTextArea, I
> wonder whether what it provides for the LoggerPanel is worth the
> potential disadvantages.
>
> I have just had a look at the display, and I'm not sure it provides
> much apart from line numbering..
>
> I can see that RSTA is beneficial for the GUI fields, but these are
> generally quite small, whereas the logging panel can grow without
> bound.
>
> At the moment the user has no choice as to whether to use it.
>
> Rather than release 2.13 and hope that the issues have been solved, I
> think it would be better to at least provide the option to disable
> RSTA for the LoggerPanel. This could be done with a property.
>
> At least then there would be a work round if RSTA proves problematic.
>
> On 24 January 2015 at 19:56, Felix Schumacher
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Am 24.01.2015 um 16:30 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> It appears 2.12 suffers from an OOM in GUI mode :
>>>
>>>     - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
>>>
>>> This OOM seems to be due to RSyntaxTexarea bug:
>>>
>>>     - https://github.com/bobbylight/RSyntaxTextArea/issues/99
>>>
>>> It appeared after the rework of LoggerPanel#processEvent way of appending
>>> event.
>>>
>>> Now that it receivs log event even when closed this OOM has more chances
>>> to
>>> appear.
>>>
>>> I reverted to 2.11 way of appending events to fix OOM waiting for answer
>>> from rsyntaxtarea project.
>>>
>>> There was also a bug in the way limit=0 was set that had no effect, I
>>> fixed
>>> it as part of the bug.
>>>
>>> There is a workaround which is to set:
>>>
>>> - jmeter.loggerpanel.enable_when_closed=false
>>>
>>> But if user opens panel, OOM will occur if lot of logs occur (specially if
>>> stacktraces).
>>>
>>> If we release, it cannot be named 2.12.1 because we have some "big?"
>>> features in this versions so it would not be a minor one.
>>>
>>> Regarding the frequency and impact of this bug, in our company I had 2
>>> reports in 5 days of this OOM so I think it is not to be ignored.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts ?
>>>
>> +1 to release 2.13. I don't think a we should go for 2.x.y.
>>
>> Regards
>>  Felix

Reply via email to