On increasingly rare occasions, you might be required to load test an application that has a Java-based florian Baudrexel PDF. While it’s nice for users to have an application that has a rich GUI, it will probably lead to a world of pain for you as a performance tester.
Um einen Kern von Installationsabbildungen herum fächert der Katalog Bereiche in Baudrexels Arbeitsweise auf, die die Peripherie seiner Werke zeigen. Eine kontemplative Bildstrecke von Muster-Drucken, stereographische Aufnahmen des Künstlers und eine Serie von Atelieraufnahmen vermitteln eine Beschäftigung mit dem Phänomen Raum auf mehreren Ebenen.
It might not be the right solution. Your first task is to pick the correct one. All your requests will be recorded as web_custom_request, and you can reformat your requests so that they are readable, and do all kinds of neat things with XPath and the lr_xml functions. You can put any Java code you like in these scripts, but there is no ability to record an application. I would only use this vuser type in situations where the application does something trivial like putting a message on a queue. 1 in a million chance that this is the correct vuser type for you.
The Citrix vuser type is like a Get Out of Jail Free card for difficult to script applications. Citrix isn’t the cleanest or most reliable protocol, but a week of hacking at a Citrix script beats many weeks of pain using the Java Record-Replay vuser. Have I dropped enough hints that using the Java Record-Replay vuser type is difficult and not much fun? I have created scripts for a few applications using this protocol now, and it is still not one that I would feel comfortable giving a time estimate for scripting with. This vuser type works differently from most other vuser types in that it does not record protocol-level traffic, it records Java method calls and their arguments. They will look kind of familiar to people who are used to customising HP Diagnostics. Here is an example from my user.
If you look for files with a . Even if your protocol is listed, don’t get too excited. It won’t necessarily work without lots of tweaking. Don’t expect to be able to do anything useful with this virtual user type unless you have a solid Java background. I have seen smart people reduced to helplessness by this vuser type. Don’t try to do it when you are on a tight deadline.
I would always prefer to use Citrix, rather than battle with the Java Record-Replay vuser again. Also, you will need to read the referenced Mercury document on Custom Hooking. Thanks for a nice and helpful artical on Java protocola. I need to develop a script using Java Record and Replay script, but now thinking of giving it a try with Citrix.
We are dedicated to improving the quality of performance testing through education and better tools. Stuart Moncrieff is a performance testing consultant based in Melbourne, Australia. Mercury Certified Product Consultant and Certified Instructor. As there is only one of me, this does not scale very well. They’re both sold by the same company, but they seem to do much the same thing. That’s an okay pitch, but it has one big problem.
Expect a 6 or 7 figure price tag. Sold cheaply to a large number of customers. Generally has complicated pricing that makes it difficult to compare other products that solve the same problem. Prices are often not public, meaning you have to ask a sales person. Quoted prices might vary depending on who is asking. Because of its price tag, it must be sold to upper management. It has a long sales cycle involving lots of meetings with sales people and pre-sales consultants.
Sale must align to corporate budget cycle. May involve perks such as being invited to a corporate box at the Grand Prix. Cost of sale is very high. Probably sold by a website with no interaction with a real person. The product is sold to people who are not going to use it themselves. Features are driven by the users who will buy the product. Is horribly complicated to install and configure.
An upgrade is a big deal that must be planned, and performed by professionals. Just click click click through the installation wizard. Because of the small install base, there are likely to be a lot of bugs related to different versions of the platform it is installed on. New versions have bugs for a long time as there are fewer users to find them and complain about them. Users of the software probably require training, even if they already know how to do the same thing with another similar product. The software should be reletively intuitive to use. The two also have different license models.