You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jmeter.apache.org by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com> on 2012/08/22 12:16:18 UTC
Re: [Bug 53749] TestListener interface could perhaps be split up
Hello,
It seems to me lot of impact with low improvement but if you want to do
it...
I remember we had a discussion on that kind of impacting changes about
logger implementation .
I wanted to switch to one not deprecated as ours and as impact was high we
abandoned it.
As we are now in these big changes (static final, interface cleanup ... )
Sebb, milamber is it ok for you if I start migration to commons-logging ?
Regards
Philippe
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53749
>
> --- Comment #3 from Sebb <sebb@apache.org <javascript:;>> ---
> Just done a check.
>
> There are about 40 implementations of testIterationStart, only 4 of which
> have
> any code; the rest are required because of the interface.
>
> One of the real implementations -
> RemoteSampleListenerImpl.testIterationStart -
> is probably redundant anyway because TIS has not been implemented for
> client-server.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are the assignee for the bug.
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: [Bug 53749] TestListener interface could perhaps be split up
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 22 August 2012 11:29, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> It seems to me lot of impact with low improvement but if you want to do
>> it...
>>
>> I remember we had a discussion on that kind of impacting changes about
>> logger implementation .
>> I wanted to switch to one not deprecated as ours and as impact was high we
>> abandoned it.
>>
>> As we are now in these big changes (static final, interface cleanup ... )
>> Sebb, milamber is it ok for you if I start migration to commons-logging ?
>>
>
>
> Why commons-loggings (not updated since 2008)?
AIUI it's not been updated since it works; there has been no need to update it.
> Log4J ?
> or directly java.util.logging.*?
That's broken, according to what I read.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Philippe
>> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, wrote:
>>
>> > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53749
>> >
>> > --- Comment #3 from Sebb <sebb@apache.org <javascript:;>> ---
>> > Just done a check.
>> >
>> > There are about 40 implementations of testIterationStart, only 4 of which
>> > have
>> > any code; the rest are required because of the interface.
>> >
>> > One of the real implementations -
>> > RemoteSampleListenerImpl.testIterationStart -
>> > is probably redundant anyway because TIS has not been implemented for
>> > client-server.
>> >
>> > --
>> > You are receiving this mail because:
>> > You are the assignee for the bug.
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cordialement.
>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>
Re: [Bug 53749] TestListener interface could perhaps be split up
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Initial thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jmeter-dev/201201.mbox/%3CCAH9fUpYWBNH4bMzw0SwZEwN_GKKy1qe42k-i%3DZb6_kZo2FLLXQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> At frst i voted for logback + slf4j but it was after discussion il the dev
> list that commons-logging seemed a better option.
>
> Regards
> Philippe
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, Milamber wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> > It seems to me lot of impact with low improvement but if you want to do
>> > it...
>> >
>> > I remember we had a discussion on that kind of impacting changes about
>> > logger implementation .
>> > I wanted to switch to one not deprecated as ours and as impact was high
>> we
>> > abandoned it.
>> >
>> > As we are now in these big changes (static final, interface cleanup ...
>> )
>> > Sebb, milamber is it ok for you if I start migration to commons-logging
>> ?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Why commons-loggings (not updated since 2008)? Log4J ? or directly
>> java.util.logging.*?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Philippe
>> > On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, wrote:
>> >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53749
>> > >
>> > > --- Comment #3 from Sebb <sebb@apache.org <javascript:;>> ---
>> > > Just done a check.
>> > >
>> > > There are about 40 implementations of testIterationStart, only 4 of
>> which
>> > > have
>> > > any code; the rest are required because of the interface.
>> > >
>> > > One of the real implementations -
>> > > RemoteSampleListenerImpl.testIterationStart -
>> > > is probably redundant anyway because TIS has not been implemented for
>> > > client-server.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > You are receiving this mail because:
>> > > You are the assignee for the bug.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cordialement.
>> > Philippe Mouawad.
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: [Bug 53749] TestListener interface could perhaps be split up
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
At frst i voted for logback + slf4j but it was after discussion il the dev
list that commons-logging seemed a better option.
Regards
Philippe
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, Milamber wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > It seems to me lot of impact with low improvement but if you want to do
> > it...
> >
> > I remember we had a discussion on that kind of impacting changes about
> > logger implementation .
> > I wanted to switch to one not deprecated as ours and as impact was high
> we
> > abandoned it.
> >
> > As we are now in these big changes (static final, interface cleanup ...
> )
> > Sebb, milamber is it ok for you if I start migration to commons-logging ?
> >
>
>
> Why commons-loggings (not updated since 2008)? Log4J ? or directly
> java.util.logging.*?
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Philippe
> > On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, wrote:
> >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53749
> > >
> > > --- Comment #3 from Sebb <sebb@apache.org <javascript:;><javascript:;>> ---
> > > Just done a check.
> > >
> > > There are about 40 implementations of testIterationStart, only 4 of
> which
> > > have
> > > any code; the rest are required because of the interface.
> > >
> > > One of the real implementations -
> > > RemoteSampleListenerImpl.testIterationStart -
> > > is probably redundant anyway because TIS has not been implemented for
> > > client-server.
> > >
> > > --
> > > You are receiving this mail because:
> > > You are the assignee for the bug.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: [Bug 53749] TestListener interface could perhaps be split up
Posted by Milamber <mi...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> It seems to me lot of impact with low improvement but if you want to do
> it...
>
> I remember we had a discussion on that kind of impacting changes about
> logger implementation .
> I wanted to switch to one not deprecated as ours and as impact was high we
> abandoned it.
>
> As we are now in these big changes (static final, interface cleanup ... )
> Sebb, milamber is it ok for you if I start migration to commons-logging ?
>
Why commons-loggings (not updated since 2008)? Log4J ? or directly
java.util.logging.*?
>
> Regards
> Philippe
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, wrote:
>
> > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53749
> >
> > --- Comment #3 from Sebb <sebb@apache.org <javascript:;>> ---
> > Just done a check.
> >
> > There are about 40 implementations of testIterationStart, only 4 of which
> > have
> > any code; the rest are required because of the interface.
> >
> > One of the real implementations -
> > RemoteSampleListenerImpl.testIterationStart -
> > is probably redundant anyway because TIS has not been implemented for
> > client-server.
> >
> > --
> > You are receiving this mail because:
> > You are the assignee for the bug.
> >
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>