jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Milamber <milam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Issues 52618 and 52674
Date Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:27:09 GMT


Le 03/03/2012 00:20, sebb a ecrit :
> On 3 March 2012 00:14, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Hello Sebb,
>> Thanks very much for taking some time to review.
>>
>> Regarding docs usage update, as there is no impact at all on usage is there
>> something to update ?
>>     
> http://jmeter.apache.org/usermanual/component_reference.html#HTTP_Proxy_Server
>
>   
>> A place to update would be the document jmeter_tutorial.pdf  linked under
>> "Extending JMeter".
>> What's the official way to update it ? Using Open Office and editing
>> jmeter_tutorial_mike.sxw or is there a better way ?
>>     
> Yes, edit the sxw file.
>   

Perhaps, convert it to OpenDocument (.odt) standardized file format (new
default format for OpenOffice and readable directly by MS Word 2007SP2+)

Milamber

>   
>> Thanks
>> Regards
>> Philippe
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:28 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> On 2 March 2012 12:24, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Hello,
>>>> In french there is a quotation that says "Qui ne dit mot consent" :-)
>>>>         
>>> [That's called "lazy consensus" here, at least when applied to votes.]
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Does it mean you're OK for me committing the issue
>>>> 52674<https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52674>or you
>>>> want to take some more time to review ?
>>>>         
>>> Just had another look.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the changes only affect the Proxy code.
>>> In which case, it cannot affect existing test plans; the worst that
>>> can happen is that the Proxy behaves differently from before.
>>> I don't think that would matter much.
>>>
>>> I don't object to the code being committed.
>>>
>>> Please ensure that the Proxy usage docs are updated as necessary.
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Thank you all.
>>>> Regards
>>>> Philippe
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> To clarify a little bit what this enhancement brings:
>>>>>
>>>>> Today the Proxy can record standard HTTP sessions that are textual, see
>>>>> the Mail of 6 feb 2012
>>>>> "It was designed for recording standard HTTP sessions; these are not
>>>>> binary"
>>>>> And particularly Issue 49039
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Although it is limited to Textual HTTP Sessions, lot of work in it can
>>>>>           
>>> be
>>>       
>>>>> reused to record AMF Sessions , Silverlight sessions or other binary
>>>>> protocols.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea behind the enhancement is to propose the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - Plugin implementor will be able by implementing a SampleCreator
>>>>>    subclass to reuse 90% of proxy feature without duplicating lot of
>>>>>           
>>> code:
>>>       
>>>>>       - All Header work
>>>>>       - Sampler transmission to a Target once it's created ,
>>>>>       - ie, all the work done in patched HttpRequestHdr which is big
+
>>>>>       the ability to customize each of the methods in
>>>>>           
>>> DefaultSamplerCreator (as
>>>       
>>>>>       Struts Base class was build for example)
>>>>>
>>>>> Another idea is to be able to customize the created Sampler, a direct
>>>>>           
>>> use
>>>       
>>>>> I see is for example is during a recording of a JSON, GWT or REST
>>>>> protocols, I as a user had to go on each sampler after recording and
>>>>>           
>>> switch
>>>       
>>>>> to RAW POST BODY (which means 40 clicks for 20 samplers), with current
>>>>> enhancement  I can just subclass DefaultSamplerCreator and register it
>>>>>           
>>> for
>>>       
>>>>> GWT Content type and just set the property to switch it to RAW POST
>>>>>           
>>> BODY.
>>>       
>>>>> Hope it's clearer.
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Philippe
>>>>>
>>>>> Today the Proxy feature can only be used to record HTTP Textual
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>> I submitted a patch for 52674<
>>>>>>             
>>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52674>
>>>       
>>>>>> Hope you can have a look at it soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't update Tests yet, if you think it's OK then I will update
>>>>>>             
>>> them.
>>>       
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Philippe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer,
>>>>>>> Did you have time to look at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    - 52618 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52618>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think patch should be applied ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also I would like to have your opinion regarding :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    - 52674 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52674>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started an implementation, should I provide a patch or commit
it
>>>>>>> directly ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My idea is the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    - Either introduce 2 interfaces:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    1. SamplerFactory with following method:
>>>>>>>          1. createSampler(String contentType) => Called in
>>>>>>>          HttpRequestHdr#getSampler()
>>>>>>>       2. SamplerCustomizer with following method:
>>>>>>>          1. customizeSampler(HttpSamplerBase sampler) => Called
in
>>>>>>>          HttpRequestHdr#getSampler()
>>>>>>>          2. fillBody(byte[] rawPostBody) => Called in
>>>>>>>          HttpRequestHdr#getSampler()
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    - Or introduce only one SamplerProvider:
>>>>>>>       - createSampler(String contentType) => Called in
>>>>>>>       HttpRequestHdr#getSampler()
>>>>>>>       - customizeSampler(HttpSamplerBase sampler) => Called
in
>>>>>>>       HttpRequestHdr#getSampler()
>>>>>>>       - fillBody(byte[] rawPostBody) => Called in
>>>>>>>       HttpRequestHdr#getSampler():
>>>>>>>          - Default implementation would do what is done today
inside
>>>>>>>               
>>> if
>>>       
>>>>>>>          ((!HTTPConstants.CONNECT.equals(getMethod())) &&
>>>>>>>          (!HTTPConstants.GET.equals(method))) {
>>>>>>>          - Other protocols would handle it another way
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cordialement.
>>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cordialement.
>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cordialement.
>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>>         
>>>       
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cordialement.
>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>     
>   


Mime
View raw message