you rock sebb. thanks for taking care of that.

peter


On 7/9/05, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All done - I hope!
> 
> An additional benefit is that the JMX files look a bit tider now -
> fewer characters need to be escaped, and it's a lot easier to read the
> ones that are.
> 
> S.
> On 7/7/05, Michael Stover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This all sounds good to me.
> >
> > Upgrading XStream                     +1
> > Updating file format version to 1.1   +1
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 13:42 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > > JMeter 2.1 uses XStream to serialise test plans and sample logs.
> > >
> > > The current code applies URL-style encoding to strings, presumably to
> > > ensure that the output is valid XML (e.g. can't have < and > in text
> > > elements and attribute values).
> > >
> > > The latest version of XStream (1.1.2) has a fix to escape such
> > > strings, so as far as I can see, the URLEncoding is no longer needed.
> > >
> > > I'd like to suggest that the encoding is left to Xstream, i.e. we
> > > remove the URLEncoding of strings. [This will make it a bit easier to
> > > read the XML files, and will make it much easier to fix the ant xsl
> > > stylesheets]
> > >
> > > Even though JMeter 2.1 has not been released, I suspect that changing
> > > the format would cause some grief, so what I propose is as follows:
> > >
> > > When reading from a JMX or JTL file, if the version is 1.0 or missing,
> > > then assume URLEncoding has been used, i.e. keep current behaviour.
> > >
> > > When writing a JMX or JTL file, don't use any encoding, and set the
> > > version attribute as follows:
> > >
> > > - change the <jmeterTestPlan> version attribute to 1.1
> > > - add a version attribute of 1.1 to <testResults>
> > >
> > > Is that OK?
> > >
> > > The only possible problem is where an existing JTL file is updated by
> > > running further tests - I'm not sure how easy it would be to fix this
> > > (the version of the JTL file needs to be stored somewhere). If it
> > > proves difficult to do this, perhaps it would be OK to leave it as a
> > > restriction that existing JTL files would not be supported for write
> > > access?
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>

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

Reply via email to