JMX backwards file compatibility

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

JMX backwards file compatibility

sebb-2-2
Is there any need to maintain backwards JMX file compatibility?

It would be easier if not ...

Perhaps the original (Avalon) format can be used as an common file
format, as we're won't change that now.

Any thoughts?

S.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JMX backwards file compatibility

Peter Lin
I think it's ok as long as we give users a warning.

I like the new format, and think it's better. There may be users who have a
large set of test plans, who might want to upgrade, but would not due to
incompatability in jmx format. I think it's reasonable to say starting with
version x.x.x, new versions may not gaurantee backward compatability. This
is assuming those with large set of testplans are fine with using older
versions indefinitely.

peter



On 11/18/05, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Is there any need to maintain backwards JMX file compatibility?
>
> It would be easier if not ...
>
> Perhaps the original (Avalon) format can be used as an common file
> format, as we're won't change that now.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> S.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: JMX backwards file compatibility

Jer_57 (Cox)
Hello JMeter,

  It would be very useful to anyone who has old formatted files to
  have a way to convert them to the new if at all possible.  If not
  automatically, an app would be extremely useful.

  jer

Friday, November 18, 2005, 10:15:38 AM, you wrote:

PL> I think it's ok as long as we give users a warning.

PL> I like the new format, and think it's better. There may be users who have a
PL> large set of test plans, who might want to upgrade, but would not due to
PL> incompatability in jmx format. I think it's reasonable to say starting with
PL> version x.x.x, new versions may not gaurantee backward compatability. This
PL> is assuming those with large set of testplans are fine with using older
PL> versions indefinitely.

PL> peter



PL> On 11/18/05, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>
>> Is there any need to maintain backwards JMX file compatibility?
>>
>> It would be easier if not ...
>>
>> Perhaps the original (Avalon) format can be used as an common file
>> format, as we're won't change that now.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> S.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


--
USE THE BEST . . .

Linux for servers . . .
        Macintosh for graphics . . .
              Palm for mobility . . .
                    Windows for solitaire!


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re[2]: JMX backwards file compatibility

sebb-2-2
The old format files can already be read and saved in the new format.

At present this has to be done manually, but it would probably not be
too difficult to add a new "Save As" option.

By changing the JMX file format property, I guess this could also be
used to convert new format back to old.  Though if the test used a new
sampler, it would not run on older versions - nothing one can do about
that!

S.
On 19/11/05, Jerry S. <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello JMeter,
>
>   It would be very useful to anyone who has old formatted files to
>   have a way to convert them to the new if at all possible.  If not
>   automatically, an app would be extremely useful.
>
>   jer
>
> Friday, November 18, 2005, 10:15:38 AM, you wrote:
>
> PL> I think it's ok as long as we give users a warning.
>
> PL> I like the new format, and think it's better. There may be users who have a
> PL> large set of test plans, who might want to upgrade, but would not due to
> PL> incompatability in jmx format. I think it's reasonable to say starting with
> PL> version x.x.x, new versions may not gaurantee backward compatability. This
> PL> is assuming those with large set of testplans are fine with using older
> PL> versions indefinitely.
>
> PL> peter
>
>
>
> PL> On 11/18/05, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there any need to maintain backwards JMX file compatibility?
> >>
> >> It would be easier if not ...
> >>
> >> Perhaps the original (Avalon) format can be used as an common file
> >> format, as we're won't change that now.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >>
> >> S.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> USE THE BEST . . .
>
> Linux for servers . . .
>         Macintosh for graphics . . .
>               Palm for mobility . . .
>                     Windows for solitaire!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]