On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:16:54 -0200, Kristian Marinkovic
<[email protected]> wrote:
but would a change, as proposed by howard, change the performance
characteristics as described by
http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/perfbench-update-tapestry-5-and-grails/?
That comparison is not fair to Tapestry, as it was implemented in a
Seam-ish way instead of a Tapestry-ish way. The Tapestry implementation of
that project puts a lot of info in the session, *including search
results". That's plainly wrong, maybe even evil for a comparison. See
http://code.google.com/p/perfbench/source/browse/trunk/perfbench/tapestry-jpa/src/main/java/tapestryjpa/web/BookingSession.java,
an object put in the session through @SessionState.
How can Tapestry, that doesn't use the session itself, could have the same
memory usage than Wicket, that puts component (page) trees in the session?
That's simply wrong. There was a discussion about it in this same list
some time ago.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer,
and instructor
Owner, software architect and developer, Ars Machina Tecnologia da
Informação Ltda.
http://www.arsmachina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
