The following message bounced when I tried to send screenshots of the problem.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Chris Kohlhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > I compiled our using the nightly LPS build, and this results in our > application looking very jumbled. SWF9 and SWF10 both show the same issue. > > If I turn the debugger on, the application looks correct. (screenshots > attached) > > It sort of looks like constraints aren't working as expected.... but I > don't have any evidence besides visual evidence to prove this. > > I spent some time trying to isolate the issue, but haven't had any luck so > far. Our application is pretty complicated, so it's pretty tough to > isolate issues. > > Any ideas? > > -chris > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Henry Minsky <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Did you mean the issue is that your code (which you've been running in >> swf9) compiled for swf10 has some artifacts, or that compiling to swf9 in >> the nightly build has problems? >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Chris Kohlhardt <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I just gave the nightly build a quick spin, and immediately ran into >>> rendering issues which I assume are related to SWF9.... Is SWF9 support >>> going away? >>> >>> We have decided not to adopt SWF10 yet because we have customers who are >>> in the 'Enterprise' and the data we have suggests Flash 10 adoption is still >>> far less than 90% there. I think the Adobe numbers are misleading ( >>> http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/enterprise_penetration.html) >>> and the analytics on our web site suggest Flash 10 has maybe 80% >>> penetration. >>> >>> -chris >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Henry Minsky <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> We just made some changes to significantly reduce the RAM required for >>>> SWF9/10 compiles. You can try them out in >>>> a nightly build, and tell us if you see any improvement (or any new >>>> bugs, god forbid) >>>> >>>> regarding the 'incremental compile' option, If you compile from the >>>> command line, the incremental option will be useless right now, since the >>>> cache it stores is in RAM. If run on the server, I don't know if it >>>> makes any difference either, it's really >>>> just a placeholder feature now and does not have an efficient >>>> implementation, it requires more work to be optimized to make much >>>> difference. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Chris Kohlhardt <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> After a good amount of work, we've managed to get our application >>>>> completely migrated to OL4.6.1 and SWF9. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you very much to everyone involved in making the SWF9 runtime a >>>>> reality. The performance of Gliffy is so much faster now, it's almost >>>>> unbelievable. We're entering QA next week, and we expect to release SWF9 >>>>> Gliffy in mid December. >>>>> >>>>> One thing we noticed is that compilation of SWF9 is a lot slower. >>>>> After some digging, we were able to speed things up by: >>>>> - setting compiler.swf9.incremental=true in lps.properties >>>>> - allocating at least 2GB of memory to the tomcat instance running the >>>>> lps >>>>> - moving developers to a pure 64bit OS (Clint moved to Windows 7 after >>>>> a long stint with XP) >>>>> >>>>> Are there any other performance tips to consider? >>>>> >>>>> thx! >>>>> >>>>> -chris >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Henry Minsky >>>> Software Architect >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Henry Minsky >> Software Architect >> [email protected] >> >> >> >
