jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de>
Subject Re: Update to minimum Java 7
Date Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:54:34 GMT
Am 01.06.2015 um 15:39 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
> As per dev mailing list thread which could have been reused for this:
> -
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jmeter-dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAOGo0Vb1FfpUiPCc0fLQhFn2oyHvTss2R90NTGM7GQsh2m_-+Q@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> +1 for me.
> Among additional reasons to what has been exposed:
>
> 1/ There is a new method in Java 7 that is interesting for performances (
> http://download.java.net/jdk7/archive/b123/docs/api/java/net/InetSocketAddress.html#getHostString%28%29)
> instead of getHostName() which makes a reverse lookup, see
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hc-httpclient-users/201302.mbox/%3C1360057832.23610.6.camel@ubuntu%3E.
> See:
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54449
> And I noticed sometimes this method could slowdown JMeter startup in
> certain network conditions, until the reverse lookup timeouts
> 2/ Better String implementation (We need to take care) =>
> http://java-performance.info/changes-to-string-java-1-7-0_06/
> 3/ We have a copy of Doug Lea's class for Random that is in JDK7
> 4/ We can expect our dependencies to drop JDK6 support in near future
> 5/ Better NIO support in recent JDK versions which we could use in some
> features discussed in RoadMap thread
>
> Regards
> @philmdot
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru> wrote:
>
>> +100500
>>
>> Andrey Pokhilko
>>
>> On 06/01/2015 04:14 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> I think we should require a minimum of Java 7 for the next JMeter
>> release.
>>> (It currently requires 1.6)
>>>
>>> This is because:
>>> - Java 7 supports proper certificate generation for the HTTP recorder.
>>> It will probably allow some code simplification.
>>> - the Javadoc vulnerability CVE-2013-1571 has been fixed since Java 7
>>> update 25 (June 2013). We could drop the patch.
>>> - any others?
>>>
>>> Of course Java 7 is just about EOL, but I've not yet seen any
>>> compelling reasons to require a minimum of Java 8. If there are such
>>> reasons (other than Java 7 is EOL) please raise them here.
>>>
>>> A very minor consideration is that Javadoc 7 seems to have been fixed
>>> to generate lower-case HTML tags - e.g. <table> rather than <TABLE>.
I
>>> assume that will remain the case. So there will be a once-off SVN
>>> difference when older API docs are replaced with new ones.

+1: lots of good reasons listed. Only very few users should have 
problems to get Java 7 to their test environments. Mostly some not-well 
maintained enterprise desktops. And I also think for Java 8 it is a bit 
to early (despite Java 7 being EOL quite a few users might have a 
problem getting Java 8 into their environment if it is centrally but not 
well managed).

Regards,

Rainer

Mime
View raw message