vlsi opened a new pull request, #6166:
URL: https://github.com/apache/jmeter/pull/6166
## Description
It enables using Java 21 for targeting the build scripts, so we could
eventually move to "use Java 21 for the build"
I am not sure we want to require "Java 21 for the build"
I am a member of the Java success team at Oracle, and a senior application
architect. I've been a JMeter user and advocate for a long time.
As a programmer, the benefits of going to Java 17 are obvious, I hope. Code is
easier to write, easier to read, and more efficient. The Java 8 Enterprise
cslfst commented on issue #6165:
URL: https://github.com/apache/jmeter/issues/6165#issuecomment-1836056977
Thanks for the quick answer.
However, after applying your changes, the result is still the same:
NullPointerException and the Thread is not continuing.
I think, the Problem is,
Hi,
The jdk11 had some issues when display text in view tree listener, it could be
very long to display a short text.
I am totally ok for jdk 17 LTS in new JMeter 6
Regards
Vincent Dab
> Le 1 déc. 2023 à 12:03, Vladimir Sitnikov a
> écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> Previously, we discussed bumping
Hello,
Ok by me, good idea
Regarde
Le ven. 1 déc. 2023 à 13:10, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> a écrit :
>
>
> Am 1. Dezember 2023 12:01:57 MEZ schrieb Vladimir Sitnikov <
> sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com>:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Previously, we discussed bumping Java requirements to
Am 1. Dezember 2023 12:01:57 MEZ schrieb Vladimir Sitnikov
:
>Hi,
>
>Previously, we discussed bumping Java requirements to 11, and there were no
>complaints.
>
>Now I suggest we consider requiring Java 17 instead.
>I think it should not be a problem as Java 17 was released quite a while
>ago,
rollno748 commented on issue #6165:
URL: https://github.com/apache/jmeter/issues/6165#issuecomment-1835988290
Will that not be, ${__groovy(Float.parseFloat(vars.get("throughput")))}
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to
Hi,
Ok too with use Java17 instead of Java11
Le ven. 1 déc. 2023 à 12:03, Vladimir Sitnikov
a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Previously, we discussed bumping Java requirements to 11, and there were no
> complaints.
>
> Now I suggest we consider requiring Java 17 instead.
> I think it should not be a
Hi,
Previously, we discussed bumping Java requirements to 11, and there were no
complaints.
Now I suggest we consider requiring Java 17 instead.
I think it should not be a problem as Java 17 was released quite a while
ago, and the users should be able to upgrade the runtime.
Many users execute
