That makes sense. The question of "when add it" is separate from "if add it". If your objection is only for "when" then we have a time to discuss the idea.
Actually, I see an opportunity for this mechanism to actually slurp in some of JMeter core plugin sets, like "mongodb", "mail" or "ftp" or others. The way of "put JMeter functionality into same bucket with its dependencies" might allow to isolate JARs that are rarely used and allow to not load them in certain cases. This would crystallize core libraries from functionality libraries, opening door to manage it. I understand that JMeter's core is "time-proven", but time changes and world evolves around us. At the time the core loading pieces were created, there were not as many plugins and vendors. And now there are tens of them. Makes sense to evolve the tool to reflect new realities. sebb, can you review the code and say your opinion if it is truly non-intrusive? Others, can you express your opinion on this feature/idea? Milamber, Felix? Andrey Pokhilko On 04/04/2016 07:30 PM, sebb wrote: > I am -1 for adding this in 3.0 > > I don't think there's enough time to consider whether it truly is > non-intrusive or even whether it is the best solution. > > It took quite a while to sort out JMeter class paths to ensure that > classes are only loaded when necessary. > The more jars there are in core JMeter, the more this becomes > important to minimise memory consumption. > > It may turn out to be OK, but this is not something that can be added > at the last minute. > > > On 4 April 2016 at 17:19, Andrey Pokhilko <a...@ya.ru> wrote: >> How does it help to remove complexity from user? Is there a way to >> seamlessly put bunch of files taken from plugin vendor and get them >> loaded by JMeter? It's not convenient way to require users to edit >> properties files every time they install plugins. >> >> Until now there was kinda "seamless" way of dropping JAR files into >> "lib" and "lib/ext", but it mixes core JARs with third-party JARs, >> making it difficult to solve possible conflicts. >> >> Why you object against some "new" mechanism in JMeter? Does it do any harm? >> >> Andrey Pokhilko >> >> On 04/04/2016 07:10 PM, sebb wrote: >>> On 4 April 2016 at 14:34, Andrey Pokhilko <a...@ya.ru> wrote: >>>> Due to non-intrusive nature of the change, may I commit the change to >>>> become part of 3.0 before we got first RC? >>>> >>>> Any objections? >>> Yes, I object. >>> >>> Unless I am misunderstanding something there is *already* a mechanism >>> for handling external jars and classes which is much more flexible. >>> >>> That is, the user.classpath property and the plugin_dependency_paths >>> property. >>> >>>> Andrey Pokhilko >>>> >>>> On 04/04/2016 03:36 PM, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016, Andrey Pokhilko <a...@ya.ru >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','a...@ya.ru');>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I've prepared a pull request, everyone can try playing with it: >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/jmeter/pull/181/files >>>>>> >>>>>> The way it is done do not break any of existing jmeter class search >>>>>> functionalities. In fact, it just extends the list of search paths >>>>>> (thanks for hint, Philippe). So just more places searched for classes, >>>>>> nothing more. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please review the pull request and tell me what you think. Including if >>>>>> it is safe to put it into 3.0 or not (it's my humble request, waiting >>>>>> another year for next JMeter release is a bit too much :) >>>>> It is a 3.0 so it took a bit more time. >>>>> I think in future we should release more often (2/3 times a year unless >>>>> there's no need). >>>>> >>>>> Note Andrei I didn't see you react on my 2/3 threads about releasing :) , >>>>> there is a last one open >>>>> >>>>>> Andrey Pokhilko >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/04/2016 02:50 PM, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >>>>>>> Yes it was a typo. >>>>>>> This needs checking particularly for plugins that dynamically search for >>>>>> a >>>>>>> class implementing an interface. >>>>>>> I don't have access to my computer but it's for example the >>>>>>> class/method >>>>>>> that is used in ViewResultsTree to search for renderers. There are other >>>>>>> place where such mechanism is used. >>>>>>> We need to be sure that placing plugin and dependencies in the same >>>>>> folder >>>>>>> will not break this part. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Philippe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016, Andrey Pokhilko <a...@ya.ru> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I assume "we do plugin dependencies go" is misprint for "where". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The idea is to make plugins dirs self-sufficient and, most important, >>>>>>>> don't touch jmeter's core "lib" and "lib/ext" dirs with plugins. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No recursive search implied, just flat list of jars in directory >>>>>> expected. >>>>>>>> For example, both file of ssh-sampler plugin would be in its dir: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> jmeter >>>>>>>> \ lib >>>>>>>> \ 3rdparty >>>>>>>> \ ssh-sampler >>>>>>>> \ ssh-sampler-1.0.jar >>>>>>>> | jsh-1.2.3.jar >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andrey Pokhilko >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 04/04/2016 02:37 PM, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Andrei, >>>>>>>>> With this approach, we do plugin dependencies go ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016, Andrey Pokhilko <a...@ya.ru <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I'm fine with not putting this into 3.0, if it's important for you to >>>>>>>>>> release it ASAP and you see a risk with this addition. I myself don't >>>>>>>>>> see any risks as long as change is made and reviewed carefully. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With "search_paths" property, the problem is that user has to >>>>>>>>>> reconfigure it for every new plugin set he installs. So instead of >>>>>>>>>> simplifying life for user we would complicate it. "search_paths" >>>>>>>>>> property implies that there's single and predictable plugins set for >>>>>>>>>> installation. My idea is to have directory structure agreement that >>>>>>>>>> allows any number of separate plugin sets from any vendors. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andrey Pokhilko >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2016 02:24 PM, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>> 3.0 is very close to release, I suggest we freeze new dev now and >>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>> I have been asked tens of time when it's out. >>>>>>>>>>> This can be done in 3.1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For info, this can already be done currently with search_paths >>>>>> property >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> user.classpath one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016, Refael Botbol <ref...@blazemeter.com >>>>>>>> <javascript:;> >>>>>>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm using lots of 3rd party plugins with JMeter and to me it will >>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>> life >>>>>>>>>>>> much easier because: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. If i'm installing a new plugin which crashes - i can >>>>>>>>>>>> uninstall >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly. >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. It will give a clear list of which plugins I'm currently >>>>>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>>> incase >>>>>>>>>>>> I need to run my script on a different machine >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Upgrading JMeter to a newer version will be almost seamless >>>>>>>> (just >>>>>>>>>>>> updating the path to my 3rd party plugin..) that way I don't >>>>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> duplicate every plugin across multiple JMeter versions I have >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:47 PM Andrey Pokhilko <a...@ya.ru >>>>>>>> <javascript:;> >>>>>>>>>> <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't mean OSGification. I mean just classpath building. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In case of library clash the earlier entry in classpath will win. >>>>>> At >>>>>>>>>>>>> least, there will be easy way to understand which plugins set >>>>>> brings >>>>>>>>>>>>> which library and reveal the plugins conflicts. For now, all >>>>>>>>>>>>> guavas >>>>>>>> go >>>>>>>>>>>>> into "lib" and you look at it with no idea "why did it happen and >>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> go out of it". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey Pokhilko >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2016 01:34 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean some kind of OSGification? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if different 3rdparties try to include different versions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of, >>>>>>>>>> say, >>>>>>>>>>>>> guava? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which version will ultimately be loaded in your suggested >>>>>> approach? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Refael Botbol, BlazeMeter. >>>>>>>>>>>> Director of Professional Services >>>>>>>>>>>>
