I am not sure about this. You can always stick it in app scope. I am curious about the work needed to keep the mapping data in sync with the component config data, as there is a lot of work being done already in syncronized regions of ApplicationImpl .
Dennis Byrne >-----Original Message----- >From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2006 06:52 AM >To: 'MyFaces Development' >Subject: Re: change state saving algorithm for tree structure > >Sounds good to me - but where do you store long - component class name >mapping? > >regards, > >Martin > >On 6/6/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> The tree structure makes up about one third of the state for state. As >> those of you who were involved in gathering test data for our presentation >> at JavaOne already know, state serialization is a performance killer for >> client side state saving. >> >> Currently MyFaces and the RI store component.getClass().getName() and >> component.getId() for the tree structure. Does anyone think it would be >> better to map the class name to a simple short ? You could perform the >> mapping at startup as each component is configured. That's a lot less to >> serialize and encrypt. It's better on bandwidth also. Not too difficult to >> implement. Have I missed anything here? >> >> Dennis Byrne >> >> @Martin, I implemented the parallelized state saving, very small but very >> consistent improvement. >> >> >> > > >-- > >http://www.irian.at > >Your JSF powerhouse - >JSF Consulting, Development and >Courses in English and German > >Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
