The long running script error in IE is actually triggered by the
number of JS statements executed (by default 5 million).
In other browsers the execution time is used.
IMHO the IE approach is better because success/failure for an
algorithm completely predictable/repeatable based on the complexity of
the code and the volume of data/iterations executed between browser
events.

Unless GWT RPC uses incremental processing for the serialisation my
guess is that one should be able to produce a test that repeatable
fails on MSIE.

I wonder has anyone actually tested?



On Jul 7, 6:23 pm, Fred Sauer <[email protected]> wrote:
> John,
>
> RPC does try it's best to be fast, but each browser puts its own
> restrictions in place for long eval times, and these restrictions change
> over time.
>
> I'd let the user experience guide you. I'd try to start displaying results
> to the user as quickly as possible. The user can't absorb 10,000 rows at
> once, so why now grab the first 30 or so rows and display those. While the
> user is looking at those, you can download additional rows.
>
> Fred
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:11 PM, John Lonergan 
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Does the RPC mechanism take any steps to avoid the dreaded long
> > running script error for big serialisations and deserialisations?
>
> > If not then is there anything I can do on the client side to chunk the
> > serialisation/deserialisation.
>
> > I'm shunting 10,000 rows up from the server and back.
>
> > Surprisingly it seems to perform ok even in IE however I'd like to
> > understand the limitations of this RPC technology.
>
> --
> Fred Sauer
> [email protected]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to