Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 09:21:23AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote: > > And I would like an HTTP tester library. I think that if done in > > this way, it would be versatile enough to replace ab, and it would > > also give people the freedom to experiment with other front ends. > > Like someting in Tk, gtk, or whatever... > Ah, but that is precisely why we use XML input to control the > behaviour of flood, so that someone can come along and write > whatever fancy GUI app they wish and couple it only to our XMl > schema. > There is another reason why we chose XML that gives us greater > flexibility than a library interface could ever give -- platform > transparency. Since flood processes need not all run on the same > machine, it is not a requirement that all machines where flood are > running be of the same operating system or architecture. This also > means that the GUI need not be on the same machine where the actual > flood process is invoked. Try doing that with a library.
It would be no problem if it were at the right level. > One thing that might be useful would be if something like tcl were > embedded in flood. And that's where you need an API. Maybe the right approach is to not have Flood be a library, but to have an API that lets you control a lot of it, ala Apache. I think I prefer the library approach personally, because it would let one create different front ends, which would let flood be *the* apache benchmark tool. -- David N. Welton Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/ Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/ Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/
