On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:03 PM, David <david.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, if I don't have support for this patch then I better stop working on > it. I can understand that this is not seen as a priority for GWT. Worst > case I just replace the BigInteger/BigDecimal class in the project itself, > that is basically what I did right now. > I'm just one person and I'm not even on the steering committee, so you shouldn't take my opinion as gospel. To summarize, I don't think there is any value in having lazy initialization of BigInteger in GWT since it doesn't strike me as an important use-case that you would instantiate a lot of them but never use them, but it might be worth looking at performance on IE8 to see if it can be improved (which might fix your problem in a more generally useful way). > Changing the application is not feasible, that will be too much work, we > are talking about many thousands of dependencies in a huge codebase where > BigIntegers and BigDecimals are used - while handling this optimisation on > the RPC level can be done in just a few lines of code. > You can also maintain a local fork of GWT if you think that is easier. > In many cases we send large lists of objects that contain BigInteger, > BigDecimals but only a few will actually be interacted with. So in that > case we only need to convert the Strings to BigInteger (or BigDecimal) when > really needed. > Well, if you are sending lots of stuff to the client that isn't actually used on the client, that seems an obvious avenue for optimization. Again, just because you can easily ship it to the client doesn't mean you should. -- John A. Tamplin -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
