Yeah it's not using the chunking now. I think it's easy to do, if I can just instantiate a DHTMLWriter and/or a SWF10Writer to compile to those targets, and forward calls to addScript() from the LibraryWriter to them.
I'll give that a try. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, P T Withington <[email protected]>wrote: > [Trimming message, adding laszlo-dev] > > The lzo compile path will not have any of your recent "chunking" > improvements, right? And we know that when running on a memory-constrained > (and virtual) machine making the JVM heap bigger buys you nothing because > you just trade GC for swap. > > If it is easy, maybe you could move the "chunking" writer stuff 'up the > tree' of writer classes so that the lzo-writing path gets the same benefit? > I expect right now that the lzo path is still the 'one big string' issue. > lzo's should not be affected by debug/backtrace except that when you turn > on debug the code is not obfuscated or compressed and the #file/line info is > preserved in the lzo. > > [... Long email thread about excessive lzo compile times with confidential > information removed ...] -- Henry Minsky Software Architect [email protected]
