Sure:

Things I don't like:

1. The plugin thing - the advantage of starting faster, to me, isn't worth the 
disadvantage of 
making gui elements harder to write, or more tedious to write.  Maybe because I have 
too 
much of a developer perspective, but an extra few seconds at start time don't bother 
me.  And 
not the whole classpath is searched anyway - only the jars under /ext.  If it's really 
important, 
there are other ways we could speed up JMeter's start up time (JMeter could "remember" 
the 
information and only re-search if timestamps on the jar files have changed or new jars 
added 
since last start).

2. Requiring that GUI elements have to transfer changes immediately to the test 
elements.  I 
didn't see that as necessary.  I like making the nodes hold test elements and reusing 
GUI 
objects, but I was thinking the transfer from GUI to test element could occur at a 
"trigger" 
event, and the duty could be handled by an action, thus relieving GUI component 
writers of 
this duty.  For instance, an event could be generated when needed that results in a 
call to 
"createTestElement" of the GUI component in question, thereby extracting the data for 
the test 
element.  The even could occur when focus is lost/gained, when a test run is started.  
Making 
GUI writers responsible for keeping test element and gui object in sync is a real pain.

3. I don't get the whole properties in test element objects, or replacing the map with 
instance 
variables.  How does cloning work now?  In what way was handling user-defined 
variables 
difficult that is now easier?  I could see how property objects could make some things 
easier 
and more modular, but not as instance variables.  I would think you'd still want some 
sort of 
collection to organize and track all the properties.  But what's this have to do with 
changing 
tree nodes from GUI objects to test element objects anyway?  

4. Changing the jmx file format - seems completely unnecessary.   I can't hardly 
imagine what 
you did that means you can't write the jmx in a compatible format? 

Things I like:
1.  Using test element objects in the tree; only one instance of each gui class - 
should make a 
marked difference in performance.

2.  Property objects have potential, but should hurt file format compatibility.

3. Splash screen, toolbar, and tabbed main panel all seem good.

-Mike

On 27 Jan 2003 at 20:46, Oliver Rossmueller wrote:

> Mike Stover wrote:
> > I only object to some pieces of it,
> 
> Mike,
> 
> you already mentioned in the Wiki that you disagree with several things 
> in my list. Would you mind to let me know what these things are and why 
> you disagree? Thankx
> 
> Oliver
> 
> 
>   but it's all been lumped together in the different
> > branch.  I don't think branching for individual developers works well - I probably 
> > should have said something earlier.
> > 
> > -Mike
> > 
> > On 27 Jan 2003 at 9:31, Oliver Rossmueller wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>I added some information about what I'm doing on the branch I started some
> >>time ago to the Wiki
> >>(http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JMeterArchitecturalOverview).
> >>Mike raised his objection there that I might be to far on the wrong road
> >>already. Therefore I would ask you to check the Wiki page mentioned
> >>above and tell me what you think.
> >>
> >>Oliver
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Michael Stover
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Yahoo IM: mstover_ya
> > ICQ: 152975688
> > AIM: mstover777
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 



--
Michael Stover
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM: mstover_ya
ICQ: 152975688
AIM: mstover777

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to