You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by Felipe Leme <ja...@felipeal.net> on 2006/06/16 18:58:41 UTC
testing.apache.org, take 2
Hi all,
Sorry for being quiet so far regarding this issue, but I've been too
busy with other real-life subjects (besides, it's World Cup time :-).
Anyway, I've read all messages and will try to write a 'condensed'
reply of all pertinent issues, plus a couple of statements summarizing
them. As such, it's going to be a long email - so, if you don't have
the patience to read all replies (I wouldn't :-), jump straight to the
end...
On Jun 6, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the
formation of this project.
I second Rahul's comment here. In fact, the proposal started as an
effort from Hen to emancipate some projects (Cactus and JMeter) out of
Jakarta, but there are many other projects interested to join the new
TLP (I will talk more about those projects later).
Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some existing projects by sheer
proximity to newer projects with active developers (amongst other
things).
This is another good point: one motivation for the TLP is to bring
momentum back to some dormant projects (like Cactus). I'm aware this
motivation could be dangerous (we could, for instance, end up with a
dormant TLP, which is worse than a dormant sub-project), but I'm still
confident it's worth a try.
Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
regards to this proposal.
Ok, that makes sense: such mitigating factors should be on our
proposal for the next meeting (I will bring them back after the
replies).
On Jun 6, 2006, at 9:47 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
It's more in our court to come up with something to convince them I think.
Ok, let's try to come out with concrete arguments for the next meeting.
Mostly I think we need to detail the cross-ASF interest in the idea.
Otherwise Jakarta Test
Ok again, let's do that. So far, I can list the following:
- Struts developed some testing artifacts also used by MyFaces
- WebWork - which has 'merged' into Struts - seems to have some
testing stuff which could be migrated to the TLP
- Cactus is (I believed) used by other JavaEE related projects (like
Geromino and Struts)
- we (Rahul and I) have been contacted in private by committers of
other ASF projects (like Tomcat and Struts) willing to donate some
code to the new TLP
- as mentioned in previous messages, there are many other examples of
testing artifacts spread across ASF projects that could be migrated
into the new TLP. Of course, each case should be analyzed in
particular, as not all of then might be suitable for the TLP, but the
point is that we have a 'market' for the TLP.
On Jun 9, 2006, at 2:50 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is
I think the problem is the fear that the TLP, as an umbrella project,
grows up in an unorganized way and becomes more of a problem than a
solution.
and what mitigating steps may be possible.
One such step is to have well defined rules on how an existing project
would be accepted in the TLP. For instance, the proponent should
'prove' that the new project would aggregate value to the TLP, either
technically and/or by bringing 'development momentum'.
Another step (related with the previous one) is to define the
incubation/sandbox mechanism for such new projects in a way a little
bit more rigid than the regular incubation process.
In particular, I would very much appreciate a definition of "umbrella"
that allows Geronimo, Logging, Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services
and Struts, but somehow
disallows Testing.
As others have already pointed out (sorry again for the delay on the
reply :-), that definition is not a consensus. Anyway, I think
Geronimo and Struts could be risked off the umbrella moniker, as they
are focused in a concrete product and not on a generic concept (like
the others). Besides, Jakarta Commons - which is the most
'problematic' umbrella, as it's very broad - is not an TLP, but a
Jakarta sub-project (well, that's another issue...).
On Jun 9, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
It makes sense that people want to be careful about a tl subdomain. Some of
the projects you mentioned are fairly staple diets to a good majority of
development projects. (ie struts/logging/xml/commons/etc) .
Yes, that's sort of what I meant previously (sorry for the
redundancy). Maybe we (ASF) need a formal definition of what makes a
TLP: for instance, it could be either a major project with some minor
sub-projects (like Struts, Tomcat, Geronimo, Maven, Tapestry, etc..)
or the (in) famous 'umbrella' (like Jakarta, DB, XML, Logging, Commons
and hopefully Testing). In other words, we would be treating the
umbrellas as 'first-class TLPs', and not some sort of 'failed
experiments' (please note that I'm not affirming the aforementioned
projects are failures, much the opposite. It's just a lack of a better
expression :-(
What would go into testing.apache.org? I'm all for it as testing in
general has to be good thing
As we mentioned before, anything (testing-related) could go into it,
although the main focus would initially be Java-related projects.
Note, though, that this 'bias' through Java is because of the TLP
roots and - most important - the background of the initial PMC members
- the TLP per se will be language-agnostic.
and there is potential for all sorts of shared support if it is made
easy to contribute into and collaborate on...Esp in the web based
items world.
I agree. There are many aspects of web development that are lacking
better testing support, like JSF, AJAX, Portlets, etc.. (I'm not
saying there isn't testing support for these areas, just that the
existing support is not well consolidated yet).
At the same time, if it's not substantial looking enough it could
~potentially~ be viewed as a negative thing.
I think it is substantial looking enough; the negative thing could be
the opposite, i.e., being too broad.
On Jun 9, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
I think we have said that any codebase (beyond the seed set) that
comes into Testing will have to have:
a) A developer base willing to invest energies
b) Existing community (for any that get incubated in -- ofcourse, that
will be overseen by the Incubator as well)
c) Binding support that will look for (a) and (b), amongst other things
Do we agree on this? Any other comments?
I agree, although we should improve the definition of 'developer base'
(it could be a single developer, couldn't it?). Also, we need rules on
what would happen with the developer base, i.e., if they should
automatically become committers or not (although I think that's
something we can define later in the inlaws of the project - I don't
think it's relevant right now).
Beyond that, IMO, it comes to having the board understand that we are
as discerning of the umbrella concern as they are. And that the
benefits seem to outweigh this concern.
I agree, specially the part of the benefits outweighing the concerns.
But we need bring them concrete arguments for that balance (I will
list some in the end of this message).
suspect that is only because we haven't talked much about Testing
outside Jakarta (AFAIK).
That's another good point, the discussion has been 'restricted' mostly
to the Jakarta folks and the board. It made sense when the focus of
the proposal was Hen's initiative to graduate some projects out of
Jakarta; now that the issue is whether or not such testing umbrella is
a Good Thing, it makes sense to spread it out of Jakarta. What about
starting a thread on the community list?
Towards the feedback in the initial email in this thread then, IMO,
this doesn't feel artificial (perhaps we need some more clarification
what that meant in the first place).
Agreed.
On Jun 9, 2006, at 2:48 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
If we're going to stand, we are going to do it on the basis of the
merit of our proposal and the community support for it, rather than
some sort of comparative analysis.
Another nice point :-)
I would also add that the community support endorses it's merit; we
just make it clear for the board...
On Jun 9, 2006, at 3:05 PM, Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
You may want to pull in someone from the webwork/struts (I don't know what
it's called right now) project. Specifically - Patrick Lightbody is pretty
active in the area of testing so getting him to dump in thoughts might help.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea right now. I mean, of course, such
contribution will be welcome once the project is established, but I
think for now we should focus on prove the merits of the proposal and
we have already enough contenders for adoption. OTOH, bring them
aboard now might help to show that the proposal has community
support...
You also have ibm and what they are doing in atf-dev @ eclipse.
By speaking of Eclipse, Cactus is already going to be included on WTP
in some way, so in the future (again, once the project is
established), we could try a closer relationship with them.
http://jrex.mozdev.org/, but I've not tried it.) I know a couple of the devs
there have expressed definite interest in anything related to
javascript/web/XHR unit testing solutions. (Javier Pedemonte/Adam Peller @
Ok, let's save these references for the future...
On Jun 10, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
I only spend my whole day at the big blue, I had no such plans (and
Now that you mentioned IBM, one thing that could help in the long term
is getting IBM (or other company) to 'sponsor' the project. I mean,
one pattern I have realized by watching/participating in many ASF
projects is that those projects that have a company behind it has more
chances to suceed - see, for instance, Geronimo, Maven, Derby and
Tomcat. So, if IBM (or other companies) could allocate some people to
the project (either their own employees or hiring some existing
committers), that would help a lot (I know this might sound too
ambitious for now, but as you spend the whole day at it, you might get
us some help in the area :-)
On Jun 9, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
time. My Internet time dives, and there are board elections happening
in a couple of weeks so the board who pick up the tabled motion are
not the same as the board who tabled it.
I'm a little bit lost here regarding the dates: are the elections
going to be held before the next meeting? Or should we focus our
efforts on the next meeting (on the 21st) so the TLP creation is
(hopefully) approved by the current board?
You've got the right idea though, show the value of a
testing.apache.org community to the ASF, and the wide interest in it.
Yes, we got it. And thank you for all the fish, I mean, help, so far...
On Jun 10, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
That's not what I meant. If the objection is "this looks like an
umbrella, and umbrellas are evil" it is fair and reasonable for us to
ask what exactly is meant by an umbrella so that we can address the
specific concerns directly.
Agreed. As I mentioned before, the board should come to a formal
definition of the umbrella moniker, so we should include it on the
next meeting's agenda.
On Jun 10, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
I think we can go by the mantra "If we build it, they will come"
I think so too, Wayne :-)
OTOH, it will help to "socialize" Testing within the Apache community,
so if you participate in projects that may be interested (or are
attending ApacheConEU, for instance), please "spread the word".
Maybe a quick BOF or something like that would be a good option
(unfortunately I'm not going to ApacheConEU though, although I will
try to go to the US conference).
On Jun 11, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
Thanks for clarifying this, Hen. I thought PMC chairs always attended
the meeting and that they were otherwise closed. Sorry for the
BTW, that brings another question: does the chair has to be a member?
If so, we must appoint another one, as I'm not.
OK, I will plan to join the meeting and do my best to get a clear
picture of what the board is looking for.
That would be great, thanks.
On Jun 12, 2006, at 7:36 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
we don't have the answers. we may not even know the questions.
The answer is 42 :-)
we need to people to ask 'why?' (so please don't stop)
Ok, in this case we should ask again Phil's question: what's the
definition of an umbrella and why some projects (like DB, XML, WS,
logging, etc..) can exist and Testing somehow can't?
coming back to henri's comments: the ASF prefers self-organisation.
reorganisations are much more likely to be approved if it's the
committers involved who are pushing for them. if the communities are
effected are strongly in favour then this has great weight.
This is counting in our favor then, as the reorganization originated
from the (Jakarta) committers and there is a large interest from the
community (for instance, the proposed PMC has members that were part
of Jakarta but not committers for Cactus or JMeter).
So, now that the replies are over, let me try to consolidate the
information, so we can have a plan for next steps:
1. We will try to pass the resolution (of the Testing TLP creation) on
the next board meeting (on 21st?) and Phill Steitz will be our proxy.
As he is not directly involved in the process (at least not yet :-),
we must come out with whatever he should present in the meeting;
2. We understand the board's concerns about an umbrella, but we would
like a formal definition of what an umbrella is, i.e., if it's allowed
to have new sub-domains as umbrellas and what rules they should
follow;
3.TAO (testing.apache.org) will initially contain only the JMeter and
Cactus projects, migrated from Jakarta
4.TAO will be open to any testing-related project, independent on the
technology or language involved. But it will have guidelines on
whether a new project would be accept on it, and these guidelines will
focus primarily in the ability of the project to maintain itself
(i.e., the developer base, community involvement, etc..). These
guidelines are also the main mitigating factor against the
'kitchen-sink umbrella concern'.
5.It's not clear yet how new projects will be accepted (although I
guess it's the regular incubator process), but that's something we can
discuss later, once the TLP is created and in place;
6.We are confident there is a growing interest in the community
(specially among other ASF projects) for this TLP; a few people
already manifested such interested. We are also aware this can be both
a good and bad sign (as it could lead to the umbrella bloat), but we
believe the benefits outweighs the concerns;
7.So far this discussion has been 'restrict' to general@jakarta list
and the board; we could 'spread the word' through the community@apache
list and ApacheConEU, but I'm not sure if it's necessary at this point
(as mentioned on item 6, there is real interest outside of Jakarta
already )
I think these statements are a good start for the next meeting's
proposal - could someone write an wiki entry for it (or even update
the current resolution)? I'm traveling until Sunday and my internet
connection is pretty bad here, so it would be hard for me to do it...
[]s,
-- Felipe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
Hi Felipe,
I fully agree with you.
> So, let's say we decide to promote Cactus+JMeter to a TLP
> of their own, but not the broad "testing.apache.org"; I have 3
> questions:
>
> 1.What should it be named ?
> 2.What exactly do these 2 projects have in common so they can be
> grouped together?
> 3.Could the TLP accept more projects? What's the criteria?
>
> Here are my preliminary answers:
>
> 2.This is the crucial point and ca be the guide for 1 and 3. Consider
> the project originated from Jakarta, whose roots come from the Java in
> the server side, we could work on something related to "Java EE
> Testing" or "Server-side Java Testing".
Java + (focus on) server-side should also allow for the testing
related artifacts from Struts and Tomcat mentioned as candidates:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-general&m=115047715227445&w=2
I'm not sure whether server-side should be tied to J2EE though.
Maybe the project description should state that it does not claim
exclusiveness within it's scope, just to be sure. After all, it is
still an effort to create a home for several related projects, and
not an attempt to find a solution for a specific technical problem.
> 1.I'm too bad on naming (JCacter? MetrusJ? :-).
Scrutiny? Ordeal?
> 3.My guess is that once 2 is answered, we would have a criteria for
> letting new projects be incorporated to the TLP.
>
>
>> Roy Fielding on 6/22:
>
>
>> A federation is simply an umbrella project with no significant
>> responsibilities of its own -- all of its projects report directly
>> to the board and simply view the federation as a communal thing.
>> I think XML and Jakarta should already fall into that category.
>> Starting one is just like starting a project, except that the
>> purpose is limited to community/commons like things and not actual
>> products. "
>
> Please forgive my ignorance, but I didn't understand this conclusion:
> does it means we could have testing as a 'federation TLP'? Os does the
> federation concept would apply to the Cactus+JMeter project?
The former, I guess. "no significant responsibilities" means that
kind of project should not release code itself, the way I read it.
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
Hi all,
Felipe Leme wrote:
> 1.What should it be named ?
> 2.What exactly do these 2 projects have in common so they can be
> grouped together?
> 3.Could the TLP accept more projects? What's the criteria?
I suggest we add "runtime testing" to the list of criteria.
I guess it's one of those implicit assumptions we've been making,
but it really should be pointed out. It reduces the scope by
eliminating projects or products like:
Gump - build time testing
Clover - requires static code analysis to determine test coverage
Quality Assurance stuff - something that runs statistics on issues
opened or closed resulting from manually executing test cases
Those are examples for things "related to testing" that are probably
not meant to be in the scope of the currently discussed new project.
If I am not mistaken, both Cactus and JMeter are executing test cases
at runtime, collecting data without instrumentation of byte code or
JVM plugins. By restricting the scope to this kind of testing stuff,
we should be able to alleviate some concerns about over-broadness.
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Felipe Leme <ja...@felipeal.net>.
Hi Phil,
On 6/23/06, Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com> wrote:
> With his permission, I am forwarding an excerpt from a recent post from
> Roy Fielding, in response to questions about a proposed "Security" TLP
> originating out of the XML project. The concerns he raises below all
> pretty much apply directly to Testing.
That post pretty much explain the umbrella issue; it would be nice to
have it somewhere on Apache's site, so it can be used in other
situations.
> Could be the right approach here is to limit it to Cactus + Jmeter, or even have
> them each TLP separtately.
That was Hen's original idea, but it faded away as these projects
didn't feel confident enough to have a TLP of their own (for instance,
I'm pretty much the only active Cactus committer right now, and not
that active; JMeter is being more active commmitter-wide, but they
were not willing to be TLPed alone). OTOH, we had drawn the attention
of more people - many of them current Jakarta PMC members, like Rahul,
Dion and Yoav - once we pushed the testing TLP, so maybe the
JMeter+Cactus TLP could be doable now, although it still requires some
decisions/definitions (see below).
> I think the key is really point 1. above as well as Roy's argument below about not
> claiming dominion over a topical area.
Ok, I agree. So, let's say we decide to promote Cactus+JMeter to a TLP
of their own, but not the broad "testing.apache.org"; I have 3
questions:
1.What should it be named ?
2.What exactly do these 2 projects have in common so they can be
grouped together?
3.Could the TLP accept more projects? What's the criteria?
Here are my preliminary answers:
2.This is the crucial point and ca be the guide for 1 and 3. Consider
the project originated from Jakarta, whose roots come from the Java in
the server side, we could work on something related to "Java EE
Testing" or "Server-side Java Testing".
1.I'm too bad on naming (JCacter? MetrusJ? :-).
3.My guess is that once 2 is answered, we would have a criteria for
letting new projects be incorporated to the TLP.
> Roy Fielding on 6/22:
> A federation is simply an umbrella project with no significant
> responsibilities of its own -- all of its projects report directly
> to the board and simply view the federation as a communal thing.
> I think XML and Jakarta should already fall into that category.
> Starting one is just like starting a project, except that the
> purpose is limited to community/commons like things and not actual
> products. "
Please forgive my ignorance, but I didn't understand this conclusion:
does it means we could have testing as a 'federation TLP'? Os does the
federation concept would apply to the Cactus+JMeter project?
[]s,
-- Felipe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Help Required
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Hi Santosh,
The main reason we forward people to the correct list (in this case jmeter-user), since the people
that are subscribed to jmeter-user are more likely to be able to answer your question correctly,
than people on general (who aren't necessarily people how are actively involved in jmeter).
About asking a question to a member of this group, I assume you mean asking a question directly to
one of the jmeter experts. The problem with asking it in private, that you are not doing the
community a favor with your question. Every question and answer is (or could be) interesting for the
community and posting your questions on the (appropriate) list also prevents people from asking the
same question again. It also is possible that the person you have chosen to mail doesn't have the
time to answer your question (or doesn't know the answer) and with sending the question to the list
other people can answer your question.
Hope that helps in your understanding why you are best off sending your questions to the correct list.
Mvgr,
Martin
Santosh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I am sorry to say if i am rude
>
> I asked the same questions from one of the member in this group who keep posting his answers regularly to the group & i got this reply from him
>
> "these questions should go to jmeter-user. please post the question there"
>
> Come on guys, if you can't help someone then please be quite rather then asking someone to freak here and there.
>
> I appreciate your response and for sure i will put my request in that group as well.
>
> Regards,
> S
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. Grobmeier [ mailto:grobmeier@possessed.de]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 3:11 PM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: Re: Help Required
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Cheers,
> please ask this at the JMeter User-List:
> Subscribe to: jmeter-user-subscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#JMeter
>
> - - Chris
>
> Santosh Kumar wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>> I need your help, i am completely new to JMeter and not able to understand the thing. I have few questions:
>>
>> 1. Can i record any script in JMeter?
>> 2. If not then how can i write new test plan?
>>
>> I guess these things would be enough for a kick start. I hope that you will turn back as you all replying for other quires in the group. Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Santosh Kumar
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFE0xYekv8rKBUE/T4RAjcJAJ4sTA2af2i3KzO1DmZ7/AK4ct6prQCbBtBX
> HQ+TpJSTgg+jfqZkhtoyPAE=
> =jXPx
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Help Required
Posted by Santosh Kumar <Sa...@TRIGYN.com>.
Hi Chris,
I am sorry to say if i am rude
I asked the same questions from one of the member in this group who keep posting his answers regularly to the group & i got this reply from him
"these questions should go to jmeter-user. please post the question there"
Come on guys, if you can't help someone then please be quite rather then asking someone to freak here and there.
I appreciate your response and for sure i will put my request in that group as well.
Regards,
S
-----Original Message-----
From: C. Grobmeier [ mailto:grobmeier@possessed.de]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 3:11 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: Help Required
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Cheers,
please ask this at the JMeter User-List:
Subscribe to: jmeter-user-subscribe@jakarta.apache.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#JMeter
- - Chris
Santosh Kumar wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> I need your help, i am completely new to JMeter and not able to understand the thing. I have few questions:
>
> 1. Can i record any script in JMeter?
> 2. If not then how can i write new test plan?
>
> I guess these things would be enough for a kick start. I hope that you will turn back as you all replying for other quires in the group. Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Santosh Kumar
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE0xYekv8rKBUE/T4RAjcJAJ4sTA2af2i3KzO1DmZ7/AK4ct6prQCbBtBX
HQ+TpJSTgg+jfqZkhtoyPAE=
=jXPx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Help Required
Posted by "C. Grobmeier" <gr...@possessed.de>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Cheers,
please ask this at the JMeter User-List:
Subscribe to: jmeter-user-subscribe@jakarta.apache.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#JMeter
- - Chris
Santosh Kumar wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> I need your help, i am completely new to JMeter and not able to understand the thing. I have few questions:
>
> 1. Can i record any script in JMeter?
> 2. If not then how can i write new test plan?
>
> I guess these things would be enough for a kick start. I hope that you will turn back as you all replying for other quires in the group. Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Santosh Kumar
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE0xYekv8rKBUE/T4RAjcJAJ4sTA2af2i3KzO1DmZ7/AK4ct6prQCbBtBX
HQ+TpJSTgg+jfqZkhtoyPAE=
=jXPx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Help Required
Posted by Santosh Kumar <Sa...@TRIGYN.com>.
Hi All,
I need your help, i am completely new to JMeter and not able to understand the thing. I have few questions:
1. Can i record any script in JMeter?
2. If not then how can i write new test plan?
I guess these things would be enough for a kick start. I hope that you will turn back as you all replying for other quires in the group. Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Santosh Kumar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com>.
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 6/20/06, Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com> wrote:
>> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>> > On 6/16/06, Felipe Leme <ja...@felipeal.net> wrote:
>> > <snip/>
>> >>
>> >> I think these statements are a good start for the next meeting's
>> >> proposal - could someone write an wiki entry for it (or even update
>> >> the current resolution)? I'm traveling until Sunday and my internet
>> >> connection is pretty bad here, so it would be hard for me to do it...
>> >>
>> > <snap/>
>> >
>> > Thanks for putting it all together as a summary, I've put the closing
>> > statements from that email, verbatim, on a wiki page [1]. Its open to
>> > edits (I might make some minor edits myself in a day or two).
>> This is good. Here are a few additional things that we might want to
>> think about adding, assuming all are OK with these commitments.
> <snip/>
>
> This (below) is generally in line with my expectations of how things
> should work, and aligned to what we've said previously in these
> threads, IMO.
>
> Ideally, there'd be a mechanism to get some feedback, even in your
> absence (thanks for volunteering though).
>
> -Rahul
>
>
>> This
>> list is designed to address some of the concerns that have been raised
>> in the past about umbrella projects. Obviously, not all may agree with
>> the points below, and even with these provisions, the board may not
>> approve the Testing proposal. I just thought it would be a good idea to
>> get these ideas out for discussion for this and the other
>> "umbrella-like" things that we may be splitting Jakarta into.
>>
>> 1. The PMC members named in the proposal are signing up to provide
>> oversight for the *entire project*, not just "subprojects" that they
>> participate in. In fact, there are formally no subprojects, just
>> products or code bases that are versioned / released separately. I
>> would recommend that we avoid the use of the term "project" other than
>> for the TLP itself and avoid "subproject" altogether.
>> 2. As new components are incorporated, the PMC will grow and will
>> always include the (the majority of) active committers working on each
>> of the components. Ability to make decisions on behalf of the whole
>> project will be considered when granting commit access.
>> 3. A necessary condition for adoption of a codebase or creation of a
>> new component will be commitment from a minimum of 3 PMC members
>> (possibly existing ASF committers, joining with the codebase) agreeing
>> to review / apply patches, review commits, serve as RM, etc. for the new
>> component.
>> 4. If one or more of the components, or the entire project, grows in
>> complexity or community size <this number intentionally left blank> to
>> the point where effective oversight / active involvement by the Testing
>> PMC on all components is no longer possible, the project will be split
>> (just as Jakarta is being split now, per this proposal). Note that this
>> is a statement of intent, not an administrative mandate (i.e., the
>> somewhat painful, consensus-driven process that we are following now in
>> Jakarta is our *intention* to improve and maintain).
>> 5. Inactive components, or components without a sufficient number of
>> active PMC members, will be regularly archived.
>>
>> One more personal thing:
>>
>> I just learned that the board meeting has been postponed until next
>> Tuesday. Unfortunately, I will not able to attend that day. Therefore,
>> it would be great if one of the other members supporting this proposal
>> could step up to attend.
>>
>> Phil
With his permission, I am forwarding an excerpt from a recent post from
Roy Fielding, in response to questions about a proposed "Security" TLP
originating out of the XML project. The concerns he raises below all
pretty much apply directly to Testing. Could be the right approach here
is to limit it to Cactus + Jmeter, or even have them each TLP
separtately. I think the key is really point 1. above as well as Roy's
argument below about not claiming dominion over a topical area.
Roy Fielding on 6/22:
"When a project "owns" a category, such as security, the participants
think that they are responsible for all Apache products in that space.
Meanwhile, what they are actually working on is a fairly small project
that addresses the specific requirements of a given set of users, such
as xml-security. People don't try to make products that are applicable
to every possible consumer in a given category, and volunteers cannot
oversee projects in which they do not actually participate. What is
left is either a single project that rejects all new target audiences
or an umbrella project that creates an artificial barrier to oversight.
There is no way to broaden the perspective of a project -- people
simply don't wake up one day and discover a need to be aware of
everyone else's work in similar projects, and most people don't
have the bandwidth to do so anyway. That is why each project has
to be self-governed.
When someone else comes along and says an obvious thing like
"XML is inherently non-secure, I want to work on a security project
that demonstrates a better way of securing blah", the developers in this
so-called "security" project are likely to be offended and make it
socially impossible for that person to participate. Even if that
is not the case, the perception that it might be the case will cause
potential contributors to go elsewhere rather than express their
ideas for a new project.
The bureaucratic mentality of committees needs to be actively offset
by the board and the only real mechanism the board has to do that is
to make sure the committees don't own categories. Instead, a PMC
owns a particular product-line and decides for that product-line the
design trade-offs to fit its target audience. If someone else comes
along with a different audience in mind (but the same category), they
don't have to be compelled to merge with the existing project and we
don't have to abuse users with major incompatible changes -- we just
set up a new product line with its own set of developers. If the
two projects decide to merge later on, everyone wins. If not, nobody
loses.
Any given problem at Apache can be solved at least a dozen different
ways, satisfying different sets of consumers, and reaching independent
levels of perfections in the minds of their own designers. We should
not fear internal competition.
A federation is simply an umbrella project with no significant
responsibilities of its own -- all of its projects report directly
to the board and simply view the federation as a communal thing.
I think XML and Jakarta should already fall into that category.
Starting one is just like starting a project, except that the
purpose is limited to community/commons like things and not actual
products. "
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 6/20/06, Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com> wrote:
> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> > On 6/16/06, Felipe Leme <ja...@felipeal.net> wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >>
> >> I think these statements are a good start for the next meeting's
> >> proposal - could someone write an wiki entry for it (or even update
> >> the current resolution)? I'm traveling until Sunday and my internet
> >> connection is pretty bad here, so it would be hard for me to do it...
> >>
> > <snap/>
> >
> > Thanks for putting it all together as a summary, I've put the closing
> > statements from that email, verbatim, on a wiki page [1]. Its open to
> > edits (I might make some minor edits myself in a day or two).
> This is good. Here are a few additional things that we might want to
> think about adding, assuming all are OK with these commitments.
<snip/>
This (below) is generally in line with my expectations of how things
should work, and aligned to what we've said previously in these
threads, IMO.
Ideally, there'd be a mechanism to get some feedback, even in your
absence (thanks for volunteering though).
-Rahul
> This
> list is designed to address some of the concerns that have been raised
> in the past about umbrella projects. Obviously, not all may agree with
> the points below, and even with these provisions, the board may not
> approve the Testing proposal. I just thought it would be a good idea to
> get these ideas out for discussion for this and the other
> "umbrella-like" things that we may be splitting Jakarta into.
>
> 1. The PMC members named in the proposal are signing up to provide
> oversight for the *entire project*, not just "subprojects" that they
> participate in. In fact, there are formally no subprojects, just
> products or code bases that are versioned / released separately. I
> would recommend that we avoid the use of the term "project" other than
> for the TLP itself and avoid "subproject" altogether.
> 2. As new components are incorporated, the PMC will grow and will
> always include the (the majority of) active committers working on each
> of the components. Ability to make decisions on behalf of the whole
> project will be considered when granting commit access.
> 3. A necessary condition for adoption of a codebase or creation of a
> new component will be commitment from a minimum of 3 PMC members
> (possibly existing ASF committers, joining with the codebase) agreeing
> to review / apply patches, review commits, serve as RM, etc. for the new
> component.
> 4. If one or more of the components, or the entire project, grows in
> complexity or community size <this number intentionally left blank> to
> the point where effective oversight / active involvement by the Testing
> PMC on all components is no longer possible, the project will be split
> (just as Jakarta is being split now, per this proposal). Note that this
> is a statement of intent, not an administrative mandate (i.e., the
> somewhat painful, consensus-driven process that we are following now in
> Jakarta is our *intention* to improve and maintain).
> 5. Inactive components, or components without a sufficient number of
> active PMC members, will be regularly archived.
>
> One more personal thing:
>
> I just learned that the board meeting has been postponed until next
> Tuesday. Unfortunately, I will not able to attend that day. Therefore,
> it would be great if one of the other members supporting this proposal
> could step up to attend.
>
> Phil
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com>.
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Felipe Leme <ja...@felipeal.net> wrote:
> <snip/>
>>
>> I think these statements are a good start for the next meeting's
>> proposal - could someone write an wiki entry for it (or even update
>> the current resolution)? I'm traveling until Sunday and my internet
>> connection is pretty bad here, so it would be hard for me to do it...
>>
> <snap/>
>
> Thanks for putting it all together as a summary, I've put the closing
> statements from that email, verbatim, on a wiki page [1]. Its open to
> edits (I might make some minor edits myself in a day or two).
This is good. Here are a few additional things that we might want to
think about adding, assuming all are OK with these commitments. This
list is designed to address some of the concerns that have been raised
in the past about umbrella projects. Obviously, not all may agree with
the points below, and even with these provisions, the board may not
approve the Testing proposal. I just thought it would be a good idea to
get these ideas out for discussion for this and the other
"umbrella-like" things that we may be splitting Jakarta into.
1. The PMC members named in the proposal are signing up to provide
oversight for the *entire project*, not just "subprojects" that they
participate in. In fact, there are formally no subprojects, just
products or code bases that are versioned / released separately. I
would recommend that we avoid the use of the term "project" other than
for the TLP itself and avoid "subproject" altogether.
2. As new components are incorporated, the PMC will grow and will
always include the (the majority of) active committers working on each
of the components. Ability to make decisions on behalf of the whole
project will be considered when granting commit access.
3. A necessary condition for adoption of a codebase or creation of a
new component will be commitment from a minimum of 3 PMC members
(possibly existing ASF committers, joining with the codebase) agreeing
to review / apply patches, review commits, serve as RM, etc. for the new
component.
4. If one or more of the components, or the entire project, grows in
complexity or community size <this number intentionally left blank> to
the point where effective oversight / active involvement by the Testing
PMC on all components is no longer possible, the project will be split
(just as Jakarta is being split now, per this proposal). Note that this
is a statement of intent, not an administrative mandate (i.e., the
somewhat painful, consensus-driven process that we are following now in
Jakarta is our *intention* to improve and maintain).
5. Inactive components, or components without a sufficient number of
active PMC members, will be regularly archived.
One more personal thing:
I just learned that the board meeting has been postponed until next
Tuesday. Unfortunately, I will not able to attend that day. Therefore,
it would be great if one of the other members supporting this proposal
could step up to attend.
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 6/16/06, Felipe Leme <ja...@felipeal.net> wrote:
<snip/>
>
> I think these statements are a good start for the next meeting's
> proposal - could someone write an wiki entry for it (or even update
> the current resolution)? I'm traveling until Sunday and my internet
> connection is pretty bad here, so it would be hard for me to do it...
>
<snap/>
Thanks for putting it all together as a summary, I've put the closing
statements from that email, verbatim, on a wiki page [1]. Its open to
edits (I might make some minor edits myself in a day or two).
-Rahul
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPCactusAndJMeter/Notes
>
> []s,
>
> -- Felipe
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
But testing ~is~ fun when you know from experience how much time it is
saving you. (sort of...as fun as programming can be right? who said we
weren't robots ? ;) )
On 7/11/06, Han ChuanBing <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's very hard to have fun with testing, especially when a job shall be
> repeated again and again.
> Maybe a robot can do that when there is a standard.
>
>
> On 7/11/06, Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net> wrote:
> >
> > Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > > "The Rack" conjures up images having nothing to do with torture for
> me.
> > > (probably because I'm such a filthy animal) ;)
> >
> > I guess software quality would be much higher
> > if more people had *fun* with testing... ;-)
> >
> > cheers,
> > Roland
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Han ChuanBing <ha...@gmail.com>.
It's very hard to have fun with testing, especially when a job shall be
repeated again and again.
Maybe a robot can do that when there is a standard.
On 7/11/06, Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net> wrote:
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > "The Rack" conjures up images having nothing to do with torture for me.
> > (probably because I'm such a filthy animal) ;)
>
> I guess software quality would be much higher
> if more people had *fun* with testing... ;-)
>
> cheers,
> Roland
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> "The Rack" conjures up images having nothing to do with torture for me.
> (probably because I'm such a filthy animal) ;)
I guess software quality would be much higher
if more people had *fun* with testing... ;-)
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
"The Rack" conjures up images having nothing to do with torture for me.
(probably because I'm such a filthy animal) ;)
On 7/10/06, Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> what has happened to this thread? Ever since Henri wrote that
> it's heading in the right direction, it seems to be dead. Bad
> beer chitchat hangover? Summer break? Everyone busy watching
> soccer? Or were my last suggestions so far off that they don't
> even deserve a response?
>
> Just to get discussion starting again, here is yet another
> alternative name suggestion:
>
> "The Rack"
>
> in reminiscence of a 70s british TV series :-)
> http://www.personal.u-net.com/~carnfort/Professionals/b02.htm
>
> cheers,
> Roland
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
Hi folks,
what has happened to this thread? Ever since Henri wrote that
it's heading in the right direction, it seems to be dead. Bad
beer chitchat hangover? Summer break? Everyone busy watching
soccer? Or were my last suggestions so far off that they don't
even deserve a response?
Just to get discussion starting again, here is yet another
alternative name suggestion:
"The Rack"
in reminiscence of a 70s british TV series :-)
http://www.personal.u-net.com/~carnfort/Professionals/b02.htm
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Henri Yandell wrote:
> There's a security related one in front of the board this month, which has
> much of the same issues as the testing one so (I reckon) that'll be just as
> educational as pushing the current testing thoughts to the board.
This resolution was passed, but it ended up just being the promotion of
the XML Security subproject to TLP (as Santuario). XML's slowly breaking
up as a TLP, so this was a natural continuation of that.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
Very good thread that I think is heading in the right direction. My
thinking is that it should continue for the next month and be put in front
of the board then if it has reached a good state.
There's a security related one in front of the board this month, which has
much of the same issues as the testing one so (I reckon) that'll be just
as educational as pushing the current testing thoughts to the board.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org