Not high data rates, but large arrays. He said he sends different length arrays containing a pojo that itself contains 10 strings of 10 chars average. In the error case, that is an array with 100,000 elements, which are themselves objects with 10 strings of 10 chars each. That's a 10meg "object" being serialized over GWT-RPC -- I'm not surprised that various JavaScript engines fell over.
Again, it's not about data rate, but object size. The only implication for data rate was that a 10 element array containing 10 pojos with 10 strings of 10 characters took between 10-30ms to send. Interesting but not very informative. Sending that same array in a loop 1000 times would be more interesting. Likely there are runtime optimizations -- especially on the Java side, but also on browsers like Safari -- that will start to kick-in once the engine has profiled what is going on. Brett On Sep 15, 3:25 am, John Ivens <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, this is scary... Firefox, Netscape and Safari all error out at high > data rates? > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:03 AM, lord.luki <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, maybe it wont be helpfull, but there si some response time testing > > whitch i did. I was testing gwt-rpc from client to gwt embedet server > > (Jetty). I was sending pojo object which contained 10 strings each > > with average length 10 chars. In table below is time in miliseconds > > for difrent lengths of arraylist containing this pojo objects. (From > > 10 to 100 000 objects). > > I also had to add -Xmx512M parameter for last column. > > > lenght: | 10 100 1000 10000 100000 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Fire Fox | 18 30 120 1200 error > > Chrome | 10 14 68 900 24000 > > IE | 13 40 230 3300 150000 > > Opera | 32 47 130 1300 27700 > > "hosted" | 340 2500 25000 249000 3270898 > > Netscape| 20 47 220 2800 error > > Safari | 10 19 70 1300 error > > > ps: yes it is 54 minutes for hosted mode :-D. > > > On Sep 13, 10:37 pm, ben fenster <[email protected]> wrote: > > > i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin > > > considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big > > > enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side > > > request handler > > > > i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per > > > second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be > > > much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it > > > out > > > On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server > > > > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) > > > > > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using GWT- > > > > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
