I'll give it another shot today and see if I can come up with a test case. -chris
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Max Carlson <[email protected]> wrote: > If there's any way you can provide us with a testcase, that would help > enormously. I'd be happy to take a copy of the app, in confidence of course > - I promise to nuke it as soon as I can derive a testcase! > > I'm hoping LZOs will be fully working in swf9/10 soon - then you could send > us a binary library... Thanks! > > > Regards, > Max Carlson > OpenLaszlo.org > > On 1/8/10 5:15 PM, Chris Kohlhardt wrote: > >> http://jira.openlaszlo.org/jira/browse/LPP-8697 >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Max Carlson <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 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]> >> <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Henry Minsky >> Software Architect >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
