jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Update to minimum Java 7
Date Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:43:40 GMT
Created a Bugzilla to track trhe changes:

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57981


On 1 June 2015 at 14:54, Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de> wrote:
> Am 01.06.2015 um 15:39 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
>>
>> As per dev mailing list thread which could have been reused for this:
>> -
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jmeter-dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAOGo0Vb1FfpUiPCc0fLQhFn2oyHvTss2R90NTGM7GQsh2m_-+Q@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>> +1 for me.
>> Among additional reasons to what has been exposed:
>>
>> 1/ There is a new method in Java 7 that is interesting for performances (
>>
>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/archive/b123/docs/api/java/net/InetSocketAddress.html#getHostString%28%29)
>> instead of getHostName() which makes a reverse lookup, see
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hc-httpclient-users/201302.mbox/%3C1360057832.23610.6.camel@ubuntu%3E.
>> See:
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54449
>> And I noticed sometimes this method could slowdown JMeter startup in
>> certain network conditions, until the reverse lookup timeouts
>> 2/ Better String implementation (We need to take care) =>
>> http://java-performance.info/changes-to-string-java-1-7-0_06/
>> 3/ We have a copy of Doug Lea's class for Random that is in JDK7
>> 4/ We can expect our dependencies to drop JDK6 support in near future
>> 5/ Better NIO support in recent JDK versions which we could use in some
>> features discussed in RoadMap thread
>>
>> Regards
>> @philmdot
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> +100500
>>>
>>> Andrey Pokhilko
>>>
>>> On 06/01/2015 04:14 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think we should require a minimum of Java 7 for the next JMeter
>>>
>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> (It currently requires 1.6)
>>>>
>>>> This is because:
>>>> - Java 7 supports proper certificate generation for the HTTP recorder.
>>>> It will probably allow some code simplification.
>>>> - the Javadoc vulnerability CVE-2013-1571 has been fixed since Java 7
>>>> update 25 (June 2013). We could drop the patch.
>>>> - any others?
>>>>
>>>> Of course Java 7 is just about EOL, but I've not yet seen any
>>>> compelling reasons to require a minimum of Java 8. If there are such
>>>> reasons (other than Java 7 is EOL) please raise them here.
>>>>
>>>> A very minor consideration is that Javadoc 7 seems to have been fixed
>>>> to generate lower-case HTML tags - e.g. <table> rather than <TABLE>.
I
>>>> assume that will remain the case. So there will be a once-off SVN
>>>> difference when older API docs are replaced with new ones.
>
>
> +1: lots of good reasons listed. Only very few users should have problems to
> get Java 7 to their test environments. Mostly some not-well maintained
> enterprise desktops. And I also think for Java 8 it is a bit to early
> (despite Java 7 being EOL quite a few users might have a problem getting
> Java 8 into their environment if it is centrally but not well managed).
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer

Mime
View raw message