yes, WE need to get this thing fixed..
Pascal Bestebroer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dynamic-core.net
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Lasse Lindgård
> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 15:00
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> More importantly than upfront performance:
> Does it reduce the memory leak ?
>
> If not then performance will be on a freight train to swap-land in no time
> anyways.
>
> My current DynAPI pages eat a meg or more pr. reload. It is not a big
> problem at my 256mb machine. But just the thoughts of my clients 32mb
> machines makes me shiver.
>
> Any news on the memoryleak front ?
> Is anybody working on it at all or are everybody busy doing "cool" stuff
> instead ?
>
> For DynAPI ever to be useful. We really need to get that memory problem
> fixed.
>
> /Lasse
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Dynapi-Dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:18:56 +0200
> Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C09823.65DE2AF0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only test
> I did was
> create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200 ms faster and
> in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
>
> I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
>
> Included in the zip are:
> tcanvas.js
> browser.js
>
> they need to be included in the document(working on adding .include)
>
> 8an
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
