The updated summary http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/1.6/DevGuideI18nAndA11y.html#DevGuideDynamicStringInternationalization
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Adam T <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dobes, > > You should thing of the trade-offs - sometimes a bit of a pain for the > developer translates to increase user experience. For example, if it > doubles your compile time, but makes your application appear and start > running in the browser twice as fast, which is most important? (those > figures are just made up!) > > However, if compile time is your prime concern, then you can use the > other approach to i18n that GWT provides - dynamic string i18n. You > won't have to have additional permutations, but you do need to load > down external Javascript map to the browser. (http://code.google.com/p/ > google-web-toolkit-doc-1-5/wiki/<http://code.google.com/p/%0Agoogle-web-toolkit-doc-1-5/wiki/> > DevGuideDynamicStringInternationalization) > > //Adam > > > On 23 Apr, 19:49, Dobes <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm considering translating my app, but I realized that it currently > > takes 12 minutes for GWT to compile the application - thus, for five > > languages would it take an hour, is that right? > > > > Or is the compiler smart enough to realize that the only thing that > > changes between these versions is those strings (no code is changing, > > so why recompile and re-optimize it all)? > > > > It seems like GWT's "permutations" system is really it's greatest > > problem for me right now. I think there are relatively few classes > > that differ between permutations and the performance gains are > > probably not that great. > > > > 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. > > > > Has anyone actually measured the benefits of compiling separately for > > each browser as opposed to just using an appropriate subclass? > > > > Any idea how much work it would be to customize the compiler to work > > this way? > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
