Could someone make a small note about what xw/ww uses from each dependency? If someone (*cough*pat*cough*jason*cough*) would even post something to the list about it, I'll put it up in the wiki.
At the business meeting: "And webwork has a small memory foot print, only ~20k" "Why is our WAR file so big then?" "Well it's dependent on a few other jars" "A few?" "At least eight actually... so far." "Why?" "Who knows, next slide please." --Erik On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Patrick Lightbody wrote: > I agree, I had that convern as well. The current jars in lib/core are: > > beanutils > logging > collections > digester > ognl > oscore > velocity > > We could get rid of beanutils, digester, and collections. That's something > XWork is using but really has no need to (we could parse the simple XML by > hand). > > So yes, we would add velocity as a dependency. But performance is so much > improved that it's well worth it (IMO). > > -Pat > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joseph Ottinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 11:00 PM > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Velocity as the UI widgets [WW 2.0] > > > > I'll be at the dev meeting, provided nothing comes up, but: my only qualm > > with using velocity for the UI tags is that it adds velocity dependency to > > WW, whereas right now, WW only requires commons-collections, > > commons-logging, digester, beanutils... oh, forget it. :) > > > > On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, [ISO-8859-1] Rickard �berg wrote: > > > > > Patrick Lightbody wrote: > > > > Small followup to that: > > > > > > > > In a result JSP (success.jsp in the example app for WW 2.0) I placed > 50 > > > > calls of either: > > > > > > > > <ww:textfield .../> > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > <ww:vmtextfield ../> > > > > > > > > Average response time when using the JSP-based components: 162ms > > > > Average response time when using the velocity-based components: 38ms > > > > > > > > That's a performance boost of 4X. Also, I don't have a test for this, > but it > > > > "feels" like velocity also scales more. Here's my less scientific > test: > > > > > > > > Using the JSP-based example from above, I held down "reload" so that > about > > > > 40 http requests were sent in. The time for the final 20 requesst to > be > > > > handled took on average 40 -seconds-. When using velocity under the > same > > > > test, the final 20 requests took on average 1.4 seconds. That's a > > > > scalability factor of about 30X! > > > > > > As I may have mentioned we are basing our SiteVision CMS/portal product > > > entirely on WebWork/Velocity. Based on benchmarks I've done the above > > > sounds about right (e.g. an average page with about 10 Velocity portlets > > > render in ~50ms, even under high load). Velocity is incredibly fast, and > > > scales very well. > > > > > > Which is why I proposed that we switch to it for the UI tags. I'm happy > > > to see that your tests verify this idea :-) > > > > > > /Rickard > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > > > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > > > http://www.vasoftware.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Joseph B. Ottinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://enigmastation.com IT Consultant > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld > http://www.vasoftware.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
