jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Issues 52618 and 52674
Date Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:31:57 GMT
On 3 March 2012 10:27, Milamber <milamber@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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+)

Yes, that would be better.

> 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