Chris,
Any chance you could file a bug at http://jira.openlaszlo.org/ and
attach the screenshots/testcase there? If there's a regression in swf9,
we really want to take care of it!
Regards,
Max Carlson
OpenLaszlo.org
On 1/8/10 4:19 PM, Chris Kohlhardt wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
