can you send me the st for the reverting? Stef
On May 28, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Henrik Johansen wrote: > It's strange though, for me dragging is just as slow reverting the > changes I made in a 319 image... > And filing in the .st in a 309 image, I notice no slow downs. (309 > upgraded to 319 I do). > > Are we sure nothing else causes this, perhaps changes related to > events/polling frequency or something? > > Cheers, > Henry > > Schwab,Wilhelm K skrev: >> Henry, >> >> I for one appreciate your effort, and encourage you to keep going. >> Speaking of slow machines, I have a small herd and would be willing >> to >> help you profile the problem. Give me about a month, and I will be >> in >> a position to press them into service to help with this. >> >> Bill >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of >> *Henrik Sperre Johansen >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:07 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 832 >> >> Sorry, just back from the pub (YAY BARCELONA!) my initial reaction >> was really: >> I'd rather see the cause of such slowdowns while resizing >> investigated >> (and fixed), but considering the time needed to accomplish that, >> rollbacking is probably a safer option at this time. >> My mind absolutely boggles that a resizing performance decrease would >> be the most visible effect of the changes made in that update... >> Welcome to the wonderful world of Morphic! >> >> Cheers, >> Henry >> >> On 27.05.2009 23:54, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote: >>> Yes, rollbacking probably is the safest choice, >>> As I implied in the mail, this was really meant as a experimental >>> effort, to see if people on slower machines noticed the effects I >>> was >>> (pre)anticipating. >>> I really don't see how an extra intersect: per Morph (containing >>> submorphs) can make such a big difference... >>> >>> I'll definately post another update sometime in the future, I don't >>> know when I'll have to look into it though. >>> <rant> >>> To me, the way it is right now seems unacceptable, there's really no >>> reason to write a "smart" drawOn: routine for morphs that are likely >>> to end up as a subMorph (saaaay, the TextMorph which I started >>> investigating in the first place), as they have to redraw the entire >>> area anyways. >>> This leads to a bad cycle in morph development; >>> "As long as at minimum the area we want to redraw is marked as, it's >>> fine. There's no performance gain from reporting a more accurate >>> area >>> anyways". >>> So you end up with "sloppy" damage rects for new morphs, which leads >>> to more to fix if it IS changed, and slower performance for those >>> whom redrawing the entire area rather than a subsection IS >>> expensive. >>> </rant> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> On 27.05.2009 19:44, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >>>> Thanks for reporting. >>>> Henrik? >>>> I could rollback the changes. >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> On May 27, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Gary Chambers wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Performance of UI seems poor after 832 integration. >>>>> >>>>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=832 >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Gary >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo- >>>>> project >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
