Hi
2016-01-13 21:43 GMT+01:00 Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com>:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Antonio Gomes Rodrigues <
ra0...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
My opinion
I think it's a good idea to rename to 3.0 the next release, because:
Old release of JMeter have bad reputation (complex to use, bad
performance,
etc.) to people
People think that JMeter evolve slowly (I have even heard it from an
Apache
(not JMeter) commiter
Same reason than Milamber
Remove old things (HC3.1 support, etc.) is great to because each time I
show JMeter to someone, he is afraid by the GUI
Remove some listener is great to (the two proposed by Philippe Mouawad)
and
maybe other (I think about Monitor Results,
+1 I think there are now better ways to do this and jmeter-plugins has 1
Graph Results,
+0, It can be useful in Debugging maybe
Assertion Results
I prefer your idea of debug listener than removal, because from
Stackoverflow questions, I think this one is used
About listener I think it will be great to brain storming about them
because I think:
they are not modern
it misses some very interesting/important (some are present in JMeter
plugins) while JMeter have some very few helpfull
I tend to think that new report dashboard feature answers this. As we do
no
favor GUI testing, I am not sure we should enhance this with.
For live graphing, we should I think enhance BackendLIstener with a JDBC
persister at least.
I think too
My complete opinion
Have the new report dashboard feature to have a complete report at the end
of the load test
Have BackendLIstener to live graphing. Have a great live graphing allow to
check the load test and stop/modify it if it's necessary (bad
configuration, bad data, etc.). It's usefull too for some test (for example
chekc in live the result of a chaos monkey)
Only keep a few listeners in JMeter core (deprecate it and remove it)
Install JMeter Plugins to have more listener if we want to display graphic
in JMeter
For the moment I have not test report dashboard feature but the screenshot
I have seen are great. I will check them asap to check if something is
missing
About BackendLIstener I have already test it and it's great. Maybe it need
some GUI improvement and new supported backend (ElasticSearch, database)
I think it will be great to separate the listener in two parts:
Nice idea.
listener (all the interesting listener (Aggregate Graph, Response Time
Graph, etc.)
debug listener (Assertion Results, JSR223 Listener, etc.)
It will be great to have project which regroup jmx files + results +
data
files like commercial tools (a zip file is sufficient)
Can you clarify this ?
Instead having one or more JMX files + data files (csv) + result load test
files (csv, etc.) I think it will be better to have a single file which
contains all these files.
Or two files (one for the load scripts + data and the other for the results
files)
It will allow to easily send to a collegue the complete script with all
necessary files (csv, etc.)
The same to send the result of a load test
It will be great to have 2 modes to hide some sampler/listener/etc.
One for newcomer and another for expert.
It will allow to don't scary newcomers the first time he launch JMeter
I like this idea, knowing that we have this property that we could use:
#jmeter.expertMode=true
Or have one mode by technology tested (http, database, etc.) + expert
mode
will all
Maybe remove some timer (I don't know is they are all used)
I think that all of them have their use but maybe put some only in expert
mode.
Another field of deprecation is maybe the BSF elements that seem to me
better replaced by JSR223 elements.
+1
Anyway thanks for all those ideas.
Antonio
2016-01-08 0:48 GMT+01:00 Milamber <milam...@apache.org>:
Hello,
For me, the jump to 3.0 must be done for next version.
Remember: JMeter 2.0.0 was release in 2004, so 12 years ago and 23
versions have been release since!
A lot of works since 2004 on the user interface (the toolbar, sampler
forms, graphical listener, etc.)
A lot of works under the woods, to improve the JMeter internal
performance, the samplers like HTTP request (default HC4), the
parallel
resource download, etc)
A lot of works to improve the user experience (like the Regexp
tester,
the
templates box, the search on the JMeter tree, log pane, OS
integration
for
copy/paste, POST body for WS request, etc.)
Recently, a lot of works on the website to refresh the design (and
logo)
(a lot of this changes will publish on the next release)
IMHO, the bump to JMeter 3.0, exceptionally can not only based on the
new
behaviors since the previous version (N-1) or API changes, but we
need
to
consider the works of all developers since 2004. (and after change
to a
new
number rules)
Apache JMeter isn't comparable with project like Commons or
HTTPClient
on
the versions rules. Commons/HC are mainly use as a framework inside
another
software (like JMeter). JMeter is mainly use a as end user software,
the
API (break/don't break) isn't the alone criteria to change the
versions
number. The UI and the engine must be consider to the next release
number.
Last reason to change : The users may be confused with a 2.x version
from
2004 (works only with Java 1.4, some jvm args are now incompatibles)
and
a
2.14 version which require Java 7.
Milamber
On 05/01/2016 11:01, sebb wrote:
On 4 January 2016 at 18:23, Philippe Mouawad <
philippe.moua...@gmail.com>
wrote:
First Happy new year 2016 !
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:26 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
JMeter does not have a formal policy for major/minor version
release
updates.
However historically major veresion changes have been associated
with
major changes.
I am proposing to follow what seems to become a standard in
versioning
refering to a proposal from a scientist working on the subject.
http://semver.org/ says:
Increment the MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
We are not doing that.
Also other ASF projects such as Commons and HttpClient require major
version bumps when removing deprecated code.
So isn't this what we are doing as we dropped 4 classes
corresponding
to
deprecated elements. And we will deprecate some more.
But the main idea behind this is that next version contains major
features
which I think deserve this change.
What features are you referring to?
I don't think the proposed changes warrant a major version bump.
I don't understand, but if we don't come to an agreement I propose
to
run a
vote on this although it would be better to avoid it.
On 3 January 2016 at 15:36, Milamber <milam...@apache.org> wrote:
I agree with a new release with a new version number system, and
with
the
next release to become 3.0.
Before the next release, I would like add the HiDPI (high
definition
screen)
for JMeter (for Linux Gnome/GTK and Windows). Currently I works
on
this.
(my new computer have a 3200x1800 resolution on a 13' screen,
JMeter
is
very
small with the CrossPlatform Swing UI)
On 03/01/2016 15:08, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
Hi Felix,
Thanks for answer.
I don't think it will be a long hold on the new release, for me
we
have
these remaining points:
- Integrate HTTPCLIENT 4.5.2 to fix
- 58583 <
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583>
- 57319
- Finalize tests
- 57804 => Waiting confirmation from Rainer or any other
member
of
the
team
- Deprecation:
- 58791 => I will do it
- Not mandatory but would be nice:
- 58793
- 58790
- 58792 => I will try to stat it
- 58794 => I will start a discussion on this
That's all for me, but if you see other things feel free to add
it.
Thanks
Regards
Philippe M.
@philmdot
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> wrote:
Am 01.01.2016 um 19:14 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
Hi,
Happy new year to the whole team.
Any news on this ?
I have nothing against a 3.0, but I would not like it, if the
"big"
version change would lead to a long hold up of a new release.
Regards,
Felix
Thanks
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
philippe.moua...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Following my proposals to deprecate a certain number of
elements
that
were
approved by 2 commiters and knowing that we have some
important
new
features in this release, I propose to name next version 3.0
instead
of
2.14.
It would be the occasion to make a big cleanup in all
"oldies"
elements
and maybe be even more aggressive in the deprecations/removals.
And starting from there change our release naming to follow
this:
- http://semver.org/
This has been mentioned by this thread and I think it's a
good
idea:
-
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jmeter-dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAFJ7uesG%2BsKiQh_wQ5_iLp%3DJ%2BtSiG5fQ%3D7Pp1CvbJ1kncXo%2B%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
I think in the developers thinking our current naming is not
great,
cause
one can think every "major" release we do is a Minor release.
--
Regards
Philippe M.
@philmdot
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
.
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
