NDT-DEV email list created

[Sebastian Kostuch <>]

Hi again,
I have implemented automatic detection of installed browser plugins 
(java/flash). Changes are
available on Issue154 branch. Feel free to review :).
Regards
Sebastian

On 04.08.2014 07:22, Sebastian Kostuch wrote:
> Thank you all for your feedback. I will let you know as soon as there 
> will be some progress in implementing
> this feature :)
>
> Regards
> Sebastian
>
> On 01.08.2014 19:26, Will Hawkins wrote:
> > I agree with Aaron and Jakub.
> >
> > On 08/01/2014 11:01 AM, Jakub Sławiński wrote:
> > > I agree with Aaron. If user can use Java client then it should be used
> > > instead of the Flash one.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >    Jakub.
> > >
> > > On 08/01/2014 04:56 PM, Aaron Brown wrote:
> > > > Hey Sebastian,
> > > >
> > > > That’s a tricky question. There are pros and cons with each:
> > > >
> > > > Java: pro: it performs well on all platforms. con: people are 
> > > > disabling it (though with the signing cert, some of these problems 
> > > > may go away)
> > > > Flash: pro: pretty much everyone has it. con: it doesn’t perform 
> > > > well in certain configurations.
> > > >
> > > > I guess my preference would be Java due to the performance issues 
> > > > with Flash. What do others think?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Aaron
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 31, 2014, at 3:38 AM, Sebastian Kostuch 
> > > > <> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Aaron,
> > > > > thanks for your response. I will then make changes such as you 
> > > > > proposed. Would it be better to use flash or java as default if 
> > > > > users have both plugins installed on their system?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Sebastian
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29.07.2014 16:42, Aaron Brown wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Sebastian,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The best case scenario would be to have the index page choose a 
> > > > > > sensible default depending on whether flash or java are 
> > > > > > installed, and make it easy for them to select it on the page if 
> > > > > > they want something different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Aaron
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jul 25, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Sebastian Kostuch 
> > > > > > <> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Aaron,
> > > > > > > we will do our best to try to help you with mentioned task. When 
> > > > > > > it comes to swapping "backend"
> > > > > > > client then ATM there is script available 
> > > > > > > ("set-active-client.sh) which allows to choose if user prefers
> > > > > > > flash or java backend and properly updates HTML code. Is such a 
> > > > > > > solution acceptable or should we
> > > > > > > rather make it different way?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 22.07.2014 19:22, Aaron Brown wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hey Jakub,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Jakub Sławiński 
> > > > > > > > <> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we will be able to help with the mentioned issues.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sebastian, can we already swap between flash and java backend 
> > > > > > > > > on the
> > > > > > > > > html level? Moreover, can we help with packaging up RPMs?
> > > > > > > > If you could create RPMs for the flash components, that’d be 
> > > > > > > > great. There’s a spec file in the trunk of the repository that 
> > > > > > > > you can add an additional flash client component to.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Aaron
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >   Jakub.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 07/21/2014 04:58 PM, Aaron Brown wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hey Jakub,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The big open part is getting the flash client packaged so 
> > > > > > > > > > that an admin can do a “yum install [package]”, and have it 
> > > > > > > > > > just work. Among other things, it’ll need to package up 
> > > > > > > > > > something to serve the default flash socket xml stuff, and 
> > > > > > > > > > include a way, in the HTML, to swap between the flash or java 
> > > > > > > > > > applet as the ‘backend’ of the javascript so folks can run 
> > > > > > > > > > either. If you guys can work on packaging up RPMs, that’d be 
> > > > > > > > > > great.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > Aaron
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Jakub Sławiński 
> > > > > > > > > > <> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > is there any progress regarding new NDT release? What has 
> > > > > > > > > > > left to be
> > > > > > > > > > > done and how we can help to make it happen?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Jakub.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 07/11/2014 03:15 AM, Richard Carlson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Will;
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The approach you describe sounds reasonable.  I would be 
> > > > > > > > > > > > happy to help
> > > > > > > > > > > > test things out once you have them ready.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 07/09/2014 08:53 PM, Will Hawkins wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Carlson,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for adding your insight on this. I certainly 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > appreciate having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the chance to work with people as respected in the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > measurement world as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you and Matt.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that the goal should be not to tell the user that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > incapable of choosing a good browser. In fact, I don't 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > actually like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chrome (shh, don't tell anyone!). I also agree that, in 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the case where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the user is running a "bad" browser/os combination, the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > measurements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > made with this Flash client will be indicative of general 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > performance on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > their connection when running Flash applications (with the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > caveat that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > HTTP-based network i/o is significantly faster than 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > socket-based i/o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > because it is implemented better by the runtime across 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms). As a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > final note of agreement, I concur that NDT is more than 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > just a "speed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > test".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The way that we are going to actually implement this is 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with a series of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > configurable knobs. The person embedding the Flash client 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in their HTML
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will have the option to treat an incompatible browser/os 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > combination as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an error or a warning. They deployer will get to handle 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that condition
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a callback and display an appropriate message (so that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they could say
> > > > > > > > > > > > > something in "big bold letters", which I liked!).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If that type of scenario is acceptable to you, the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > decision is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about the appropriate default (error or warning). We are 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > close to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > finishing up an implementation. Would you be willing to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > review that when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's ready and see if it meets your expectations?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again for adding your thoughts! I was hoping that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you'd weigh in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We have Matt M on a separate thread adding his thoughts as 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > well so I am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > confident that we will come to a solid resolution.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07/09/2014 08:40 PM, Richard Carlson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian/Will;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I agree with this idea. While I agree that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > letting the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > user know that the test results are bad due to the Flash 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > runtime
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem, I'm not at all convinced that the proper 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > response is to say
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'use Chrome'.  It just seems a bit strong to me, like you 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are saying the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > user is too stupid to run a good browser.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd prefer to let the test run and put in big bold 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > letters across the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > results page or in some other manner indicate that the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > limiting factor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the client's flash runtime.  That way the user is 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > being informed and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the logged test results can also contain the same 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > notation so they can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be discarded if necessary.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > After all, they will get that performance when running 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other flash apps,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so it would be good for them to know what the limits are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole purpose of the NDT system is to provide 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > advanced diagnostic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > messages, not just run speed tests. Showing the user that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > results are limited and explaining why would be much 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better than telling
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to 'trust me and replace your browser's flash runtime'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So for me, the real question is can you make a simple and 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > intuitive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > image or text that clearly shows that the problem is the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > flash runtime
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not the NDT service.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07/08/2014 03:09 AM, Sebastian Kostuch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Will,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO it would be good to disable possibility of running 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we detect that flash client is being run from within not 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platform. With this there won't be faked results noted 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on server
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > side's statistics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also looking forward to any further information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding new release :).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03.07.2014 02:40, Will Hawkins wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian and Aaron (and everyone, really),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We at MLab are in the final throes of getting our 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platform ready
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flash client. In so doing, we've gotten deep into the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > weeds on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > performance/measurement implications of the Flash runtime.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to present you with our findings and get your 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > input.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On all platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux), running the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flash client in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Google Chrome works a-ok. On Windows, running the Flash 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > client in all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other browsers work great too. On Linux and Mac, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > however, that is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mac and Linux where the user runs the NDT Flash 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > client under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adobe's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > runtime (i.e., browsers other than Chrome [even 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chromium does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work]), there is not enough network i/o fidelity to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > produce
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > measurements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for connections with > ~ 50mbps throughput (on the s2c 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > side).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, Google's independent implementation of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Flash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > runtime
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > performs well enough on all platforms, but Adobe's 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > performs well enough only on Windows.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because MLab collects lots of data, we don't want our 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > results to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spoiled by tests whose results are artificially 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > limited. We are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attempting to work out a way to "encourage" users to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > run the test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > environment where we will get the most accurate 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > results. To do so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > settled on the following plan:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.  When the flash client detects that it is being run 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > within a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-optimal environment, display the following:  
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test cannot run within your current browser 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > environment.  Please run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the test from within Google Chrome, or download M-Lab's 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Firefox
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Extension."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.  Disallow the flash client from running on any 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platform that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identifies itself as something other than Windows / 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chrome.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do people think about this plan? Reasonable?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As always, it's great working with everyone in NDT 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > land. I look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > forward
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to continuing the work :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/18/2014 03:06 AM, Sebastian Kostuch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indeed these changes results in higher speeds (I was 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able to get ~760
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mbps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which is quite similar to yours). Also I have checked 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > flash client as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > background
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for new JS UI and both speeds are being updated 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correctly in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > real-time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really great work! Thanks for this. I have merged 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these changes into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trunk so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they would be also present in new release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also as you probably have noticed I have fixed 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compilation error when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > web100 so I closed appropriated issue related to this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 17.06.2014 22:52, Will Hawkins wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sebastian and Aaron (and MLab'ers CC'd),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We found a way to juice the Flash client and achieve 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the performance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessary to accurately measure high-speed network 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The change is in r1082.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution was counterintuitive (at least for me). 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attempting to read data from the socket as quickly as 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TestS2C class just gets out of the way for the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > duration of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test. It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > registers only for the "socket close" event. The 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > runtime has the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessary speed to keep up with the network.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only problem with this method is keeping the user 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up-to-date on progress throughout the test. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian, this is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need you to double check. I believe that the code in 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > r1082 properly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates _s2cByteCount in the appropriate spot for 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those real-time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates (specifically onSpeedUpdate). But, please 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > double check!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We were able to measure a connection at ~ 775 mbps 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using the Flash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > client, but it would be great to have as many people 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test this as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible. To do so, you can use a pre-compiled 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://files.opentechinstitute.org/~hawkinsw/flash/test.html 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On a separate, but related note, please also review 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > r1083 for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inclusion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the NDT release. This change allows the client to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > re-query JS for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test's hostname just before launching a test. This 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gives the wrapper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > page the opportunity to do a AJAX query to determine 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the test's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hostname. This is important for MLab because we do 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dynamic server
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selection using a web-based API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am eager to hear whether you have success with 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these changes or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hope you do!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/17/2014 10:53 AM, Will Hawkins wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just FYI: I believe that we have happened on to an 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actual solution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the "limit" to the performance of the S2C test. I am 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > going to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it today and do some testing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If possible, could we hold out on doing a release 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for a little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pending this investigation?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/16/2014 01:50 AM, Sebastian Kostuch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Will,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what you mentioned seems reasonable. Would it be 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes into trunk in nearest time so we could make 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example tomorrow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or the day after tomorrow?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 13.06.2014 17:36, Will Hawkins wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for sending this out! We (at MLab) are very 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interested in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deploying a new version of the code so this 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'release' looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good place to fit together! :-) In other words, we 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (again, MLab)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > definitely going to do what you said in 3!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am out of the office, but I wanted to quickly 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respond to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > point 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See below!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again for driving this process forward!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/13/14, 4:47 AM, Sebastian Kostuch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NDT has been updated recently with some major 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes (like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MSG_EXTENDED_LOGIN,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > json support, new JS UI) so as I have mentioned 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in some earlier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that would be probably
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good time to make new release. I have few 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > questions related to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. New JS UI would fit well within this new 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release, however
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > related to this are still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on work branches and need review. Any feedback 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appreciated. These are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > following issues: 129, 132, 133.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Is Issue144 (URLLoader to flash) supposed to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be contained
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nearest release version?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If yes, then how does progress with work on this 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like? If I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > recall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correctly then you, Will,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned that they are well tested and thus 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > almost ready,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of these are still up for debate. I am going 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to forward an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > email
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I just sent to the MLab team with an update 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the conundrum
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > around the HTTP test to give you a sense about why 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they are up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > debate.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, there are also changes in that branch that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *need* to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incorporated into anything that gets released. For 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > r1070.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are parts of r1064 that will have to be 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrated no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > matter
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what (any of the changes that have to do with 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > splitting start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize test stages).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that make sense?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Along with new release on googlecode what do 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you think about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pushing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these changes also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on M-Lab site? They bring many new features at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your answers and I hope that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next week
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > celebrated with making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new release of NDT :).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian Kostuch