Still not working for me. <inherits name="com.google.gwt.core.Core" /> <collapse-all-properties /> <set-property name="user.agent" value="safari"/> <add-linker name="sso" />
[ERROR] The module must not have multiple fragments when using the Single Script Linker. Probably the problem is that I have many languages (i18n) in my app. Any other ideas? On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 11:08:13 PM UTC-8, Kirill Prazdnikov wrote: > > Please try single permutation > <set-property name="user.agent" value="safari"/> > > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Slava Pankov <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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/trends.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.com/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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> 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.
