Created a Bugzilla to track trhe changes: https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57981
On 1 June 2015 at 14:54, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote: > Am 01.06.2015 um 15:39 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: >> >> As per dev mailing list thread which could have been reused for this: >> - >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jmeter-dev/201411.mbox/%3ccaogo0vb1ffpuipcc0flqhfn2oyhvtss2r90ntgm7gqsh2m_...@mail.gmail.com%3E >> >> +1 for me. >> Among additional reasons to what has been exposed: >> >> 1/ There is a new method in Java 7 that is interesting for performances ( >> >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/archive/b123/docs/api/java/net/InetSocketAddress.html#getHostString%28%29) >> instead of getHostName() which makes a reverse lookup, see >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hc-httpclient-users/201302.mbox/%3C1360057832.23610.6.camel@ubuntu%3E. >> See: >> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54449 >> And I noticed sometimes this method could slowdown JMeter startup in >> certain network conditions, until the reverse lookup timeouts >> 2/ Better String implementation (We need to take care) => >> http://java-performance.info/changes-to-string-java-1-7-0_06/ >> 3/ We have a copy of Doug Lea's class for Random that is in JDK7 >> 4/ We can expect our dependencies to drop JDK6 support in near future >> 5/ Better NIO support in recent JDK versions which we could use in some >> features discussed in RoadMap thread >> >> Regards >> @philmdot >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <a...@ya.ru> wrote: >> >>> +100500 >>> >>> Andrey Pokhilko >>> >>> On 06/01/2015 04:14 PM, sebb wrote: >>>> >>>> I think we should require a minimum of Java 7 for the next JMeter >>> >>> release. >>>> >>>> (It currently requires 1.6) >>>> >>>> This is because: >>>> - Java 7 supports proper certificate generation for the HTTP recorder. >>>> It will probably allow some code simplification. >>>> - the Javadoc vulnerability CVE-2013-1571 has been fixed since Java 7 >>>> update 25 (June 2013). We could drop the patch. >>>> - any others? >>>> >>>> Of course Java 7 is just about EOL, but I've not yet seen any >>>> compelling reasons to require a minimum of Java 8. If there are such >>>> reasons (other than Java 7 is EOL) please raise them here. >>>> >>>> A very minor consideration is that Javadoc 7 seems to have been fixed >>>> to generate lower-case HTML tags - e.g. <table> rather than <TABLE>. I >>>> assume that will remain the case. So there will be a once-off SVN >>>> difference when older API docs are replaced with new ones. > > > +1: lots of good reasons listed. Only very few users should have problems to > get Java 7 to their test environments. Mostly some not-well maintained > enterprise desktops. And I also think for Java 8 it is a bit to early > (despite Java 7 being EOL quite a few users might have a problem getting > Java 8 into their environment if it is centrally but not well managed). > > Regards, > > Rainer
