On Monday, February 23, 2015, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 February 2015 at 19:57, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Am 23.02.2015 um 19:36 schrieb sebb: > >> > >> The Java version check in JMeter script files is somewhat fragile, and > >> has to be maintained. > >> > >> Does it really provide enough benefit to keep it? > > > > > > IMHO currently there's no real necessity to remove it, or did you find > > another problem with it? I suspect you ask, because there's always exotic > > systems and writing portable shell scripts is a hard task and one can't > > easily test them (because the platforms are not available). > > As I recall, the scripts have already had to be updated at least twice > to fix bugs in the Java checks. > > The risk is that additional bugs still exist which may mean the script > won't work on some other platform. > Apart from the additional work needed, in the meantime the user may > not be able to use JMeter. > > It seems unnecessary effort to maintain a feature of the scripts that > is not required for proper operation of JMeter. > > As far as I can tell, the only benefit is that users who don't have > the correct Java version on the path will get a nicer error message. > However every time the script is used, there are 4 invocations of awk > and one of "java -version". > This is rather wasteful. > > No opinion on this.
Seems to me that there are better ways to spend our time maintaining JMeter. > > > Since our requirements are very relaxed (Java 6), there's no big use in > the > > version check either. In most cases the condition will be fulfilled, so a > > clear documentation statement should suffice. I think currently the info > is > > only on the download page and in the changelog. Maybe it could be added > to > > the "a 100% pure Java application" sentence in the landing page and in > the > > intro page of the users manual without bloating that pages to much. > > Yes, that is a much better use of developer time. > Could also document the errors that are produced if the wrong JVM is used. > > > So I'm fine with either keeping or removing the check, but I think we > should > > place the requirement a little bit more prominent in the docs in any > case. > > Agreed. Same opinion I think anyway that command line options where this could be added should be isolated in a dedicated page. I always find myself searching for those. New users should find easily: - tool pre requisites - command line options > > Regards, > > > > Rainer > > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
