Hello Leonardo, That's great to hear. I'll have to try out the new release :-).
___ Kito D. Mann | twitter: kito99 | Author, JSF in Action Virtua, Inc. | http://www.virtua.com | JSF/Java EE training and consulting http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info | twitter: jsfcentral +1 203-404-4848 x3 * Listen to the latest headlines in the JSF and Java EE newscast: http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/roller/editorsdesk/category/JSF+and+Java+EE+Newscast * Sign up for the JSFCentral newsletter: http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kito > > MyFaces Core 2.0.12 has the same improvements. All improvements done > has been applied on both branches, even if that means some overhead > associated. Compared with 2.0.11/2.1.5, the diference is significant. > > regards, > > Leonardo Uribe > > 2012/2/9 Kito Mann <[email protected]>: > > Leonardo, does 2.0.6 share the same memory consumption improvements? > > ___ > > > > Kito D. Mann | twitter: kito99 | Author, JSF in Action > > Virtua, Inc. | http://www.virtua.com | JSF/Java EE training and > consulting > > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info | > twitter: > > jsfcentral > > +1 203-404-4848 x3 > > > > * Listen to the latest headlines in the JSF and Java EE > > newscast: > http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/roller/editorsdesk/category/JSF+and+Java+EE+Newscast > > * Sign up for the JSFCentral newsletter: > http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> Some days ago Thomas Andraschko told on users list that he already > >> have a variant of this for MyFaces. Look the mail with subject: > >> > >> "Weird PlexusContainer object in ViewRoot" > >> > >> I think it is a good idea to put that code in myfaces commons or as an > >> extension (extensions/stateless-jsf ?). Since the license of the code > >> is ASL, it is possible to host it here. To make this possible I think > >> we should vote about create a module. > >> > >> @Thomas: could you create an issue on myfaces issue tracker: > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES > >> > >> and attach the code you are working on, so the PMC can vote if it is > >> worth to create the subproject? > >> > >> About performance of MyFaces code vs Mojarra: I think with the latest > >> changes MyFaces code looks very good. Yes, there is a lot of room from > >> improvement. I think it is possible to do things like trim spaces in > >> facelets compiler, remove <!-- --> on the scripts (it is there because > >> very early versions of MyFaces do that), or optimize js rendering > >> using some myfaces specific code instead call javax.faces js api. But > >> note recent optimization in myfaces renderers has been improved its > >> base speed. If you exclude the javascript rendering part, MyFaces > >> renderers looks good. > >> > >> I think we should let those optimizations for 2.2. The only thing left > >> to start working on that branch is reorganize shared modules (split > >> shared in two, cleanup and maybe create myfaces-impl-api submodule to > >> hold stuff like spi interfaces and other myfaces-impl api to be used > >> for integration points). > >> > >> Right now, MyFaces 2.1.6 uses a lot less memory, and recent > >> improvements into its PSS algorithm has reduced the required state > >> size for views, making it very efficient. > >> > >> regards, > >> > >> Leonardo Uribe > >> > >> 2012/2/9 Werner Punz <[email protected]>: > >> > Hia just a general discussion, regarding performance. One of the big > >> > performance impacts is statefulness, now there has been a project > >> > > >> > > >> > > http://industrieit.com/blog/2011/11/stateless-jsf-high-performance-zero-per-request-memory-overhead/ > >> > > >> > This however is only for Mojarra, shouldnt we target something > similar, > >> > one > >> > day or the other it will be part of the spec, so targetting this early > >> > might > >> > give the mojarra guys a push for going there also. > >> > > >> > If you look at the numbers you can see there is a lot to gain by being > >> > able > >> > to render pages stateless one way or the other. > >> > I personally think in the typical extranet site, most pages are able > to > >> > go > >> > stateless and about 5-10% should be stateful, that way we could cover > >> > both. > >> > > >> > Another performance issue I still have gripes with is the rendered > code. > >> > For a small page we on the average still have way more code rendered > >> > than > >> > Mojarra, in some cases up to 40%. Which is a lot. > >> > > >> > While we already did some work regarding our onclick event javascript > >> > calls, > >> > there is still lots of room for optimization in our code. > >> > For instance we render <!-- --> with all linebreaks and spaces between > >> > link > >> > and script tags intact. > >> > > >> > Mojarra basically strips all unneeded stuff and renders only the > script > >> > and > >> > link tags without any blanks. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Werner > >> > > > > > >
