On Saturday, October 13, 2018, Felix Schumacher < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > Am 13.10.2018 um 10:01 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: > >> Hello, >> Can I drop Browser Renderer for 5.1 version ? >> > > You already have my +-0 ;) > > Would it be better in your opinion, if we hide the exception and print a > info message, that in order to use the Browser Renderer you would need to > install JavaFX? Why not if you find a clean way to do it. > > Regards, > Felix > >> >> Regards >> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:39 PM Philippe Mouawad < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:35 PM Felix Schumacher < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Am 12.10.2018 um 22:30 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: >>>> >>>>> My 2 cents below. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:15 PM Felix Schumacher < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Am 12.10.2018 um 21:44 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Felix, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback. >>>>>>> Regarding the place where to put them, frankly I don't know. >>>>>>> Andrei proposed to make them available in jmeter-plugins plugins >>>>>>> >>>>>> manager >>>> >>>>> but required that we do the move to some github repo and contribute a >>>>>>> plugin descriptor. >>>>>>> I must say that for now, I feel it's too much work for me , which I >>>>>>> >>>>>> prefer >>>>>> >>>>>>> to invest on useful features. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should we create a github jmeter-legacy-plugins project ? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Would it be enough to create a new branch in our svn repository? That >>>>>> should be mirrored automatically to github. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it would be better to create a new github project >>>>> >>>>> What would be the plan for releasing those plugins? >>>>>> >>>>>> Move them to this repo >>>>> Create a plugin descriptor >>>>> Then they will live their end of life >>>>> >>>>> If we donate them to someone outside of Apache, would we have to rename >>>>>> the packages and would old test plans still work? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to keep package name to avoid breaking existing plans. >>>>> >>>> Well I believe my real question was, would the code stay inside the >>>> Apache JMeter project, or completely in the wild? >>>> I am not sure, that it would be a good idea to leave the namespace >>>> unchanged, when we release them into the non-apache-world. >>>> >>>> My idea was to drop them from repo. >>> If we don't keep the name, we break plans. >>> If we keep them, do you think it's a blocker for releasing them into the >>> non-apache-world, even if we name the repository >>> apache-jmeter-legacy-plugins ? >>> >>> If we need to keep them in JMeter repository, I don't see the gain as >>> there will be work to maintain this. >>> >>> >>> Felix >>>> >>>>> Scratching my head. >>>>>> Felix >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:39 PM Felix Schumacher < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 12. Oktober 2018 20:43:50 MESZ schrieb Philippe Mouawad < >>>>>>>> [email protected]>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do we have a consensus on dropping RenderInBrowser ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like it, as it gives a nicer rendering than the really old java >>>>>>>> component, but have to admit that JavaFX is going to be a lot harder >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>> >>>>> find in the default installation. And my pages are probably not the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> most >>>> >>>>> complex ones, so there are no problems from missing resources. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Has anyone has tried to get JavaFX as an Extremfall dependency into >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> build process? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All in all I am +-0 to kick it out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do we have a place for those old 'plugins'? That would be useful for >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> mongodb plugin, too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Felix >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:43 PM UBIK LOAD PACK Support < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For information, as I think message was for mailing list. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>>>> From: Milamber <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:19 AM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: View Results Tree: Drop browser renderer >>>>>>>>>> To: UBIK LOAD PACK Support <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm agree to suppress this renderer. It's not very useful, bad >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> rendering >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and too slow. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Milamber >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 26/09/2018 08:55, UBIK LOAD PACK Support wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>> Isn't it time to drop Browser component and dependency on Java FX >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> in next >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> version ?: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - It is not available in OpenJDK which should become the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> most >>>> >>>>> used >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> JVM ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It currently trigger an ugly stacktrace >>>>>>>>>>> - It introduces complexity and did not offer that much >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> interest >>>> >>>>> as >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> initially expected >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:10 PM Felix Schumacher < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.04.2018 um 09:14 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>>>> In jdk11, oracle will split javafx and javase. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This component uses javafx, I initially thought it would be a >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> renderer but due to security limitations on resources download, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ended >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> much less useful and rendering is always partial. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So I propose to drop it in next 4.1 . >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any chance to bypass the limitations on resource >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> download? I >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> found the rendering to be a bit better than the built-in >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "browser", but >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> there is certainly a lot of room for improvement. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Felix >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Throughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com> Team >>>>>>>>>> Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cordialement >>>>>>>>>> L'équipe Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com> >>>>>>>>>> Suivez-nous sur Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> -- >>> Cordialement. >>> Philippe Mouawad. >>> >>> >>> >>> > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
