I agree... this is a huge problem. Pretty much makes the software unusable
unless you have a ton of ram.
I currently have a level-3 defect on the memory leak generated by DynAPI for
a software product that is supposed to be out the door in a week. We have
not successfully had any impact whatsoever on this issue to date.
Anyone had any luck with this? Anyone have any ideas?
Mike Ellis
-----Original Message-----
From: Lasse Lindgård [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 07:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 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
