have you looked at the new method for creating
samplers? jordi and sebastian have been working on it,
so you may want to take a look at that.
peter lin
--- Jerry Pulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Mike.
>
> All things considered, I'm inclined to agree. And
> it's not creating a
> problem for me at the moment. My
> NullSampler.sample(Entry) just returns
> null, but I wonder if I'll have to modify that when
> I start plugging in
> listeners.
>
> However, since I've invested a little time on this
> issue, I'll toss in
> my .08 bits ($0.02). (Hope you don't mind.) A
> package like JMeter
> should be safely extensible; it shouldn't have to
> "learn about this new
> possibility". Documenting and adhering to the
> contracts of the various
> framework classes would go a long way. Implementing
> the contracts in
> the framework classes, then closing those classes
> for modification while
> leaving them open for extension, would be even
> better. There seems to
> be a lot of procedural tangling up and down the
> inheritance hierarchies;
> it's better to ask "What is this thing I'm coding?"
> than "How can I
> modify this thing to do what I want?" O-O
> programming is descriptive,
> procedural programming is prescriptive.
>
> Ok, sorry, no more unsolicited advice about Object
> Zen.
>
> I hate to suggest another big mod to the framework
> classes. I know the
> last one broke a lot of user code. (Entry?) But I'm
> itching to do it
> now that I've done the research, you know how that
> goes. If you ever
> consider such a thing, let me know and I'll
> contribute what I can. On
> the other hand, if you're pretty sure the framework
> is locked down, I
> could contribute some up-to-date howto's for
> controllers and samplers.
> I've got to write them anyway for my coders at work.
>
> jp
>
> public class NullSampler extends AbstractSampler {
> private static NullSampler instance;
>
> private NullSampler() {
> }
>
> public static synchronized NullSampler
> getInstance() {
> if (instance == null) {
> instance = new NullSampler();
> }
> return instance;
> }
>
> public SampleResult sample(Entry e) {
> return null;
> }
> }
>
> On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 13:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Ok, so here's the thing. If you have a controller
> that does nothing but return null, a loop
> > controller is going to continue searching for a
> sub-controller with a sampler to return. If you're
> > controller returned a sampler, then null, then a
> sampler, then null, etc (like a normal controller
> > does),
>
> what's a "normal controller"?
>
> then this problem doesn't show up. It's when you
> have a sampler that insists on never
> > providing a sampler, yet also insists it's got
> samplers to provide (ie, it's not "done").
> >
> > So, here you are trying to make a triggered
> controller that could reasonably have no samplers
> > to provide, but insists that it might at some
> point in the future. It's sort of a new situation
> not
> > anticipated by the current code. You could create
> a NullSampler that returns a dummy
> > ResponseData object to get around this, though
> that's a substandard solution since your
> > listeners will get a lot of these things. But,
> I'm not sure I see a better solution until JMeter
> > learns about this new possibility.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2004 at 16:00, Jerry Pulley wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
