Sorry, I was confusing prepareCall with prepareStatement.

Anyway, I have now incorporated your patch (with a few minor unrelated changes).

If you want to try it, it's in the latest nightly build.

S.
On 26/03/06, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've now had a look at the patch.
>
> I think it is potentially useful (and should not break anything else),
> so I will add it to the code.
>
> But I'm not sure how useful it will be ...
>
> I thought prepared statements were only useful where a statement is
> repeated many times:
>
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/jdbc/basics/prepared.html
>
> At present, the prepared statement will be regenerated for every
> sample - so unless there is some hidden caching going on, I'm not sure
> that it will help performance at all.
>
> But perhaps I'm missing something?
>
> S.
> On 26/03/06, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks. I'll take a look shortly.
> >
> > By the way, I updated the documentation in the current 2.1 branch to
> > show the correct JDBC Query types. The documentation is available in
> > the nightly builds, if you want to have a look, or it is in SVN under
> > xdocs - but not in the trunk, it is in
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/jmeter/branches/rel-2-1/
> >
> >
> > S.
> > On 26/03/06, Ronald Bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the details of the best approach towards registering this
> > > contribution.
> > > An Enhancement already exists #38682.  Atttachments provided.
> > >
> > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38682
> > >
> > > Ronald
> > >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > > >Thanks very much for the contributions.
> > > >
> > > >Sorry to trouble you, but could you possibly create a Bugzilla
> > > >enhancement request, and attach the files to that (the attach link is
> > > >only visible once the issue has been created).
> > > >
> > > >It's much easier to keep track of patches via Bugzilla - and easier to
> > > >reference.
> > > >[And it reduces the mailing list volume...]
> > > >
> > > >==
> > > >
> > > >By the way, JMeter does support calling "stored procedures" at present
> > > >- it's just that it does not have support for "prepared statements",
> > > >which is what your patches do according to the blog.
> > > >
> > > >S.
> > > >On 26/03/06, Ronald Bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Hi All,
> > > >>
> > > >>I've added support to the JDBCSampler to call Store Procedures. This
> > > >>then enables, Selects, Updates and Calls via JDBC.
> > > >>I won't bore you all with the reasons why and bloat this email. You can
> > > >>read about it at http://blog.arabx.com.au/?p=149
> > > >>
> > > >>Attached are SVN patches as per your guidelines.  I've not used SVN
> > > >>before, nor submitted to an Apache project, so please advise if I've
> > > >>missed some guidelines.
> > > >>
> > > >>In addition, your online document reference doesn't presently match the
> > > >>screen in Version 2.1.1.  The current binary version has Query Type
> > > >>[Select, Update], rather then Query Only [True|False]  at
> > > >>http://jakarta.apache.org/jmeter/usermanual/component_reference.html#JDBC_Request
> > > >>
> > > >>Regards
> > > >>
> > > >>Ronald Bradford
> > > >>http://www.arabx.com.au
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to