Hi Vitali, I have to test my CSS in all browsers, so I can't really work with one permutation. Also, sometimes I need to make a last-minute patch before a release and a 1-hour compile time would make that pretty much impossible.
Also, if using a single permutation development is the "right way" to do it, why is it such a pain to do? I have to create a separate module just for that purpose ... it should just be a compiler argument. On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Vitali Lovich <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you are not understanding the proper way to do this (it's on the > docs btw for how Google uses it). You specify a specific permutation during > development (i.e. english/firefox) so that compilation is super-fast (use a > separate gwt.xml file with the rename-to option). When you compile all > permuations, that's for deployment - happens much less frequently. Also it > a very parallelizable operation, so add the localWorkers option to your > project if you have more than 1 cpu - i.e. (-localWorkers 4). > > 2009/4/23 Dobes <[email protected]> > >> >> I think it would be a lot better for my purposes to have a single >> permutation and just have GWT.create() instantiate the right generated >> subclass for the current browser/language setup. In fact, that would >> cut my compile time down to just 2 or minutes. >> > How do you propose to do that? The whole point of GWT.create is that it is > a compile-time substitution - it actually changes what code is generated. > By doing a run-time substitution, of course. > Has anyone actually measured the benefits of compiling separately for >> each browser as opposed to just using an appropriate subclass? > > They have - it was quite significant. But all these are just micro > benchmarks, so they aren't going to give you an appropriate view of the > impact on your application. > Ah, any references to these where I could take a look at them? > A generic approach requires the traditional javascript way of doing > unnecessary feature checks. > I don't see how dynamically selecting a class to instantiate is any worse - they are already doing those features checks when the js is loaded, they would just defer class selection until runtime instead of compile time. Functionally it's the same, except there are a few more classes included in the compile, and some methods that can't be inlined since they might be overridden in a subclass. > Any idea how much work it would be to customize the compiler to work >> this way? > > Not going to happen since it defeats the whole purpose of doing GWT. > Actually the point of GWT is to develop in Java using the tools in the Java IDE, permutations are just an optimization, in my opinion :-). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
