On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Philippe Mouawad < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:03 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I can understand why one might want to enable the use of the Nashorn >> JS engine, however I think it should have been discussed first. >> > > I thought it was discussed within > > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57576 > >> >> The Nashorn engine is twice as slow as Rhino initially, so benefits >> will only appear over the long run. >> > From the bench I made using 2 IfController , 50 Threads and 100 > Iterations, Throughtput of current JMeter Nashorn integration is higher > than Rhino's one. I didn't compare strictly the 2 engines. > I will attach my test plan but I let you make some tests. > > >> So there are potential drawbacks to making Nashorn the default. >> > Which ones if we exclude the "performance", knowing we introduced an > option to revert to it and also added a mention in Breaking Changes ? > For performances I don't read results as you do, in my understanding once > Nashorn is warm it's much faster than rhino. > >> >> Also it looks like the Google V8 engine is much better than Nashorn >> (though maybe we cannot use it). >> >> Furthermore, I don't understand why the change should only affect the >> If Controller. >> > > > I updated IfController because I was looking for a first step to improve > performances of Javascript part. > And I must say I never use the Javascript function due to performances > compared to Groovy code. > By the way (I will open another subject), as Groovy is becoming an Apache > project, how about embedding it in JMeter ? So that it's here as a > replacement to Beanshell ? > > Rhino is also used by the _javascript function. >> > You're right function should also be updated. > >> >> [The BSF and JSR223 elements also support Javascript, but that is a >> separate issue entirely] >> > > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad. > > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
