Ok so, seems that next JMeter major version (v6) will have as
requirement at least Java 17 LTS+
On 04/12/2023 10:24, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
Java 21 was released just a couple of months ago, so it might be too early
to require Java 21 for the execution. We should probably support at least
two
Java 21 was released just a couple of months ago, so it might be too early
to require Java 21 for the execution. We should probably support at least
two LTS releases.
Vladimir
Hi,
Thanks Jerry for comments.
@PMC would you open a vote thread for JMeter 6 support JVM ? with Java
17 or Java 21 ?
Milamber
On 01/12/2023 19:11, Jerry Andrews wrote:
I am a member of the Java success team at Oracle, and a senior application
architect. I've been a JMeter user and
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
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,
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
