Thanks for the very helpful and quick response.
On 12 October 2011 17:30, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 October 2011 16:03, Nico Kruger <nico.kru...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi there >> ...SNIP.... > > No, the BSF samples currently each use their own BSF Manager and > interpreter - it is not currently shared. > > Same for JSR223 currently. > > It's only the BeanShell sampler that re-uses the interpreter. > Could you perhaps elaborate on the difference betweens JSR223 and BSF? What are the advantages/disadvantages of each, because functionally they look pretty similair for the untrained eye. In fact, I was definitely confused about the differences between the three - I was under the impression that BeanShell is just a different "language" you choose inside the BSF sampler. Is it sufficient to say that, at the moment, the BeanShell sampler is the more advanced/mature of the three? Are the different scripting samplers going to be unified in this regard in the future? > > Work-rounds: > - use BeanShell I would like it if we could get away with jRuby instead of switching to BeanShell. We have a lot of already existing jRuby code that excercises the system from the outside which we use in cucumber-jvm for example that I would like to re-use. > - create and manage the interpreter yourself - if you use the > interpreter to create an interpreter rather than a socket, it may be > possible to invoke the saved interpreter. > Interesting idea, will have a look at this. > Or perhaps the TCP Sampler would be a more suitable base. > Another good idea, will I be able to access the TCP sampler from a scripting sampler? Again, thanks for your insights. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-user-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-user-h...@jakarta.apache.org
