You are right, the difference is not significant. Enabled by default makes sense for me.
Le 19/07/2011 15:36, Glenn Adams a écrit : > Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the junit > tests, I get the following: > TRUNK CMPLX DIFF% > junit-basic 4.87s 4.92s 1.01% > junit-layout-standard 36.34s 36.72s 1.04% > > In the case of junit-layout-standard, there are 25 more tests run in the > Complex Script branch. > > So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance based > on this data. > > I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for enabling > by default. > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Pascal Sancho <pascal.san...@takoma.fr > <mailto:pascal.san...@takoma.fr>> wrote: > > Hi Glenn, > > IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the > performances. > Can you give an approximative impact? > > > Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit : > > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script > features > > (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or > both) > > command line option and config file element; the question I have is > > whether to enable or disable by default? > > > > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or > don't want > > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a minor > > performance penalty. > > > > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts > or want > > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do > > something special to enable this support. > > > > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either > way. > > > > G. > > > > -- > Pascal > > -- Pascal