Awesome - thanks so much! Regards, Max Carlson OpenLaszlo.org
On 1/11/10 3:18 PM, Chris Kohlhardt wrote:
I was able to come up with a simple test case, and I've attached it to http://jira.openlaszlo.org/jira/browse/LPP-8697 I hope this helps! -chris On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Chris Kohlhardt <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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] <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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]>> <mailto:[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]>> <mailto:[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]>> <mailto:[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]>> <mailto:[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]>> <mailto:[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]>> <mailto:[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]>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
