https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #10 from Dan Fruehauf <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Sebb from comment #9) > (In reply to Dan Fruehauf from comment #8) > > I understand the backward compatibility argument, however you are catering > > here for the an extremely unlikely use case, which probably doesn't exist > > and will happen if and only if both conditions are met: > > * The user has a hostname named as a device - UNLIKELY > > * That hostname resolves to an IP address which is not of the mentioned > > device - VERY VERY UNLIKELY > > But not impossible. Prove me wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps just process the hostnames first - would that work? > > > > Provided I do that, how do I know if something is a hostname or a > > > > device? > > > > > > If the name does not resolve as a host name, then assume it may be a > > > device. > > > > You are adding significantly extra complexity here for a situation that > > probably doesn't happen. Over engineering backward compatibility. > > I disagree that any of the fixes I proposed would significantly increase the > complexity. > > > > Surely the Unix device is actually something like /dev/tun10, not just > > > "tun10" anyway? > > No, it's just tun10. > > So it does not exist under /dev? > > > I'm unconvinced that any of the hypothetical scenarios we mentioned here > > actually happen in real life. Even with pretty bad engineering paradigms. > > We disagree. Prove me wrong then. > > The patch will not be accepted without changes to ensure: > - host names take precedence over device names > - the network devices are not searched unnecessarily If the JMeter team prefers backward compatibility for hypothetical, unlikely, probably non-existent scenarios over innovation (which solves real world scenarios) then I think my work here is done. Feel free to close that bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
