like i said in my original email: PropertyResolver is optimized for
our usecases, it delivers awesome performance - but only when used for
those usecases.

you are never meant to use propertyresolver yourself. i will add that
to the javadoc.

i still dont understand how you use propertyresolver for "sorting". is
it that the dynamic string here represents a method that returns the
value you sort on? to get 800ms, how big is your dataset that you are
sorting, and how are you sorting it?

-igor


On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Miguel Munoz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>  igor.vaynberg wrote:
>  >
>  > PropertyResolver is not meant for your direct consumption. it is
>  > something we use for our own purposes inside wicket.
>  >
>
>  This is a bit surprising, since the Javadocs provide a very friendly
>  explanation of how to use the class. If it's not intended for us, maybe the
>  Javadocs should say so.
>
>
>
>  igor.vaynberg wrote:
>  >
>  > i am not sure we are willing to change how it works as it gives us no
>  > benefit, the class as is right now is optimized for our specific
>  > usecases.
>  >
>  >
>
>  If you like, I will present more detailed performance data when I have it.
>  While I'm happy to switch to a different library, I would still like to know
>  that Wicket performs as fast as possible.
>
>
>
>  igor.vaynberg wrote:
>  >
>  > you can use a library like mvel/ognl to perform dynamic evaluations
>  > that are for your needs. i hear mvel is pretty good.
>  >
>  >
>
>  Are you saying here that PropertyResolver shouldn't be used for
>  performance-critical tasks like sorting? If so, you might want to say so,
>  again, in the javadocs. (You should also suggest mvel.) That said, I'm happy
>  to switch to mvel if that will give me the performance I want.
>
>
>
>
>  -----
>  There are 10 kinds of people: Those who know binary and those who don't.
>  --
>  View this message in context: 
> http://www.nabble.com/PropertyResolver-redesign-tp16495644p16540848.html
>
>
> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

Reply via email to