On 02/11/06, James Bull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I want to have a listener that will take a value say 10 for the sake of
argument and divide it into ten
intervals 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 in this case. For each interval it will
have a variable.
As j-meter runs it will perform comparisons. And increment the variable
associated with the interval into which the response time falls.
This information could ultimately be graphed in the j-meter gui but for
the time being I would be happy just to output these values to the log.
I thought I would try basing my code on the SimpleDataWriter which extends
the AbstractVisualiser
My theory was that I would just be able to add a data structure and work
my funky magic from the addSample method.
Unfortunately I have fallen at the first hurdle and have failed to make it
appear in the gui. I have got a class BucketWriter which is based on
simple datawriter (I changed the class name and put it in a different
package) I added a System.out.println(); to the addSample method in the
hope I would be able to see this and be sure everything was working and
make progress from there.
As far as I can tell Abstract Visualiser is supposed to deal with getting
things into the menu system with the getMenuCategories() method which is
set to say this is a listener.
I put the jar file containing only my class file into the lib directory.
Is the package name important?
No, but the jar needs to be put into lib/ext, not lib.
So I would be grateful to know 1) how to get the thing appearing and 2) is
it a good idea.
Seems fine, but it might be useful to be able to have unequal bucket sizes.
The idea of course is to get an idea of the distribution of response times
without storing vast amounts of data.
For 10 buckets I anticipate it ought to be pretty quick as we can put a
value in a bucket with only three comparisons if we do a binary search.
Would it be a crazy idea to try this for 100 buckets thus ending up with
100 values stored per test and 10 or so comparisons needed?
Should be OK, but needs to be tested...
My thinking is it would not be a good idea to try to set the max value
automatically as you would have to keep all the samples in memory which is
clearly daft. So if you have specified a silly number and all you results
are in the final bucket then you just specify a bigger number and run the
test again.
Or have a catch-all for values larger than a certain amount.
I also thought it might be a good idea to specify start and finish values
rather than just an end value and assuming a start interval of 0-whatever.
Any comments welcome.
As mentioned above, I think it would be useful to have variable bucket sizes.
Thanks,
James
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
