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

Reply via email to