Please try single permutation <set-property name="user.agent" value="safari"/>
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Slava Pankov <[email protected]> wrote: > SSO is not working for my project, I cannot successfully compile with it. > Put the following to my gwt.xml, but no luck: > > <inherits name="com.google.gwt.core.Core" /> > <collapse-all-properties /> > <add-linker name="sso" /> > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 6:44:37 AM UTC-8, Kirill Prazdnikov wrote: >> >> Do you use SSO ? SSO script is smaller then no SSO. Did you run CC on it ? >> >> 29 нояб. 2016 г. 17:29 пользователь "Etienne Basso" <[email protected]> >> написал: >> >> Hi Ignacio, >>> >>> This is not only about loading time over the network, but also about >>> script parsing by the web browser. >>> In 98% of the case this is not an issue, but I have a very specific use >>> case were the code is directly embedded on a special device which doesn't >>> even have a real CPU but an ASIC emulating one. This device is really >>> really not powerful and GWT is the only framework providing decent speed. >>> I noticed significant differences in the script parsing delay as js sources >>> are getting bigger. >>> >>> In my case 100KB are a huge deal. >>> >>> Le samedi 26 novembre 2016 09:56:27 UTC+1, Ignacio Baca Moreno-Torres a >>> écrit : >>>> >>>> But IMO if you really care user experience you have other places to >>>> improve your page. I thinks updating to the last version is always a good >>>> idea, if any security or compatibility blocker problem is detected in your >>>> version you will need to update, and having a old version won't help. Also >>>> this helps move forward the community and the lib (GWT), because everyone >>>> focused in the last version, also focus the issues and improvements in that >>>> version. >>>> >>>> The small step back eliminating the closure compiler just increase a >>>> bit the code size of your app. But 100k?! did you see the trends and the >>>> average code size of webs? http://httparchive.org/t >>>> rends.php?s=All&minlabel=Nov+15+2014&maxlabel=Nov+1+2016, you should >>>> note that even google.com uses 500k in 13request to load, and it's >>>> ""just"" a text inbox in the center of your window ( >>>> http://httparchive.org/viewsite.php?pageid=70036564). >>>> >>>> I might be wrong, but probably trying to embed the app.nocache.js in >>>> your index.html will gain some milliseconds, probably just that dummy >>>> change will get more ms than the cache-ables 100k you have lose without the >>>> closure pass. If your app is quite big, various MBs, you should take care >>>> than the first split point load a minimum as possible to show something to >>>> the user. But, in your case, less than a 1M, I think that using split point >>>> is not a good idea. Your code will get cached, and most of static apps >>>> already has more than 500k of JS, so your single page app having a 500k-1M >>>> of JS is pretty reasonable. >>>> >>>> You can go forward and apply the progressive web concepts ( >>>> https://developers.google.com/web/progressive-web-apps/checklist). >>>> Pretty sure you get there without the closure compiler ;). Service workers >>>> will allow maximum control to preload other split point or resources, and >>>> to absolutely control how your app caches, so you can use previous version, >>>> load the next one and in the next page reload the new app version will be >>>> used. This is not easy at all, but... some time we focus on the >>>> optimization we have no control of (like the closure pass) and we don't >>>> apply other we have control of, but that requires our effort. >>>> >>>> So, 😀 update to GWT 2.8! it's awesome!, try other solutions to improve >>>> page loads and share how you do it! >>>> >>>> On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 10:39:44 PM UTC+1, Slava Pankov wrote: >>>>> >>>>> @Jens >>>>> >>>>> I've tried WITHOUT any success to use closure compiler externally with >>>>> GWT 2.8 >>>>> See my question here: https://groups.google.co >>>>> m/forum/#!searchin/google-web-toolkit/closure$20compiler% >>>>> 7Csort:date/google-web-toolkit/k_kjIv9Klsg/LZAZiUf9BAAJ >>>>> Still want to find out exact steps to get it working :-( >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 2:43:11 AM UTC-8, Kirill Prazdnikov >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jens, >>>>>> >>>>>> What if we have SSO linker ? >>>>>> Then no hacks is needed, right ? >>>>>> Then just run the Google Closure Compiler on the output. >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "GWT Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/google-web-toolkit/IIQk4xH0-g8/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
