On 12 August 2016 at 15:38, Epp, Jeremiah W (Contractor) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sebb [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 7:36 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: JMeter JMX file format
>>
>> Note that changing the JMX file format has major implications for
>> upwards compatibility.
>
> Part of the problem there is JMX isn't versioned.

There *is* some versioning info; it's perhaps not changed as
frequently as it should be.
But any changes are upwards compatible.

> Or really specified at all.  It's a de facto format that arises from the 
> [voodoo] serialisation of the test plan's root ListedHashTree of 
> JMeterTreeNodes.  (Please, DO correct me if I'm wrong; even a bad spec would 
> have been useful months ago.)

There is no spec as such.
However JMeter uses XStream to serialise the classes that form the
nodes, so the format is defined by that.
JMeter uses config files to define shorthand aliases to reduce the file size.
Otherwise of course the source code is available.

>> That's not to say it cannot be done, but the additional work must be
>> considered before deciding to make a change.
>
> In my mind, this is the major motivation for a test plan DSL: retain support 
> for the "legacy" JMX as much as possible (read and write), but otherwise have 
> a clean break that lets the project move forward sanely.

I'm not sure how you can do that unless the DSL generates JMX.

> Regards,
> Wyatt
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message transmission, including any 
> attachment(s), may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged 
> information from Chemical Abstracts Service ("CAS"), a division of the 
> American Chemical Society ("ACS"). If you have received this transmission in 
> error, be advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the 
> contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please destroy all 
> copies of the message and contact the sender immediately by either replying 
> to this message or calling 614-447-3600.
>

Reply via email to