Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Glenn Adams]

FopFactory.setComplexScriptFeaturesEnabled(false)

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:

> **
> I don't use command line.
> I don't use a configuration file.
> Effect on embedded code?
>
>  --
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:18 PM
>
> *To:* fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by
> default?
>
> well, the consensus seems to enable by default, which I have now done; to
> disable, there are two methods:
>
> (1) use '-nocs' option on command line
> (2) use  in configuration file
>
> this will go into my next patch to the Temp_ComplexScripts branch
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:58 PM, J.Pietschmann  wrote:
>
>> Am 19.07.2011 09:51, schrieb Jeremias Maerki:
>>
>> I'd enable it by default. I think that results in fewer questions and
>>> performance freaks can always disable it if you can make it configurable.
>>>
>>
>> I had the same thoughts.
>>
>> J.Pietschmann
>>
>>
>

RE: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Eric Douglas]

I don't use command line.
I don't use a configuration file.
Effect on embedded code?



From: Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:18 PM
To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Subject: Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by
default?


well, the consensus seems to enable by default, which I have now done;
to disable, there are two methods: 

(1) use '-nocs' option on command line
(2) use  in configuration file

this will go into my next patch to the Temp_ComplexScripts branch


On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:58 PM, J.Pietschmann 
wrote:


Am 19.07.2011 09:51, schrieb Jeremias Maerki: 


I'd enable it by default. I think that results in fewer
questions and
performance freaks can always disable it if you can make
it configurable.



I had the same thoughts.

J.Pietschmann

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Glenn Adams]

well, the consensus seems to enable by default, which I have now done; to
disable, there are two methods:

(1) use '-nocs' option on command line
(2) use  in configuration file

this will go into my next patch to the Temp_ComplexScripts branch

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:58 PM, J.Pietschmann  wrote:

> Am 19.07.2011 09:51, schrieb Jeremias Maerki:
>
>  I'd enable it by default. I think that results in fewer questions and
>> performance freaks can always disable it if you can make it configurable.
>>
>
> I had the same thoughts.
>
> J.Pietschmann
>
>

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[J.Pietschmann]

Am 19.07.2011 09:51, schrieb Jeremias Maerki:

I'd enable it by default. I think that results in fewer questions and
performance freaks can always disable it if you can make it configurable.


I had the same thoughts.

J.Pietschmann

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Pascal Sancho]

You are right, the difference is not significant.
Enabled by default makes sense for me.

Le 19/07/2011 15:36, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the junit
> tests, I get the following:
>   TRUNK CMPLX DIFF%
> junit-basic   4.87s 4.92s 1.01%
> junit-layout-standard36.34s36.72s 1.04%
> 
> In the case of junit-layout-standard, there are 25 more tests run in the
> Complex Script branch.
> 
> So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance based
> on this data.
> 
> I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for enabling
> by default.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Pascal Sancho  > wrote:
> 
> Hi Glenn,
> 
> IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the
> performances.
> Can you give an approximative impact?
> 
> 
> Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script
> features
> > (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or
> both)
> > command line option and config file element; the question I have is
> > whether to enable or disable by default?
> >
> > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or
> don't want
> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a minor
> > performance penalty.
> >
> > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts
> or want
> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do
> > something special to enable this support.
> >
> > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either
> way.
> >
> > G.
> >
> 
> --
> Pascal
> 
> 

-- 
Pascal

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Glenn Adams]

Hmm, that may not be a very representative example, since:

   - Arial Unicode MS is one of the largest fonts (23MB, 50377 glyphs)
   - read{GDEF,GSUB,GPOS} is a one-time event when reading the font

It would be useful for you to try:

   - one page versus 2000 pages
   - same but with another font, such as Arial or Times New Roman

In any case, I do not expect there to be any optimization opportunities in
read{GDEF,GSUB,GPOS} other than possibly pre-compiling this data and storing
it in the FOP font cache for future reuse.

G.


On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:21 AM, mehdi houshmand  wrote:

> Hi Glenn,
>
> What we did isn't very complex, a 2000-odd page document filled with
> Loret ipsum... That's about it, the font used was ArialUnicodeMS.ttf
> and was embedded in the PDF. The version was i18n.arabic@09c38b8b and
> the major blocking point was in TTFFile.java readGDEF(in) readGSUB(in)
> and readGPOS(in). Commenting these out reduced the performance impact
> from 150% to 110% as compared to trunk.
>
> Mehdi
>
> On 19 July 2011 15:02, Glenn Adams  wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "the layout tests don't cover fonts,
> > rendering". While it is true that those tests do not cover rendering, it
> > does include use of fonts.
> > Could you send me the "large latin only document" in FO form (preferably
> > compressed if large), so I may test it?
> > G.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mehdi houshmand 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Glenn,
> >>
> >> We took a look at the complex scripts support, and a big chunk of the
> >> code-base is in the fonts, and the layout tests don't cover fonts,
> >> rendering etc. What are you finding for end-to-end performance? We
> >> created a large latin only document and found about 50% increase in
> >> time.
> >>
> >> Mehdi
> >>
> >> On 19 July 2011 14:36, Glenn Adams  wrote:
> >> > Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the
> junit
> >> > tests, I get the following:
> >> >   TRUNK CMPLX DIFF%
> >> > junit-basic   4.87s 4.92s 1.01%
> >> > junit-layout-standard36.34s36.72s 1.04%
> >> > In the case of junit-layout-standard, there are 25 more tests run in
> the
> >> > Complex Script branch.
> >> > So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance
> based
> >> > on
> >> > this data.
> >> > I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for
> enabling
> >> > by
> >> > default.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Pascal Sancho <
> pascal.san...@takoma.fr>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Glenn,
> >> >>
> >> >> IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the
> >> >> performances.
> >> >> Can you give an approximative impact?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> >> >> > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script
> >> >> > features
> >> >> > (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or
> >> >> > both)
> >> >> > command line option and config file element; the question I have is
> >> >> > whether to enable or disable by default?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't
> >> >> > want
> >> >> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a
> >> >> > minor
> >> >> > performance penalty.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or
> >> >> > want
> >> >> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do
> >> >> > something special to enable this support.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either
> >> >> > way.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > G.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Pascal
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[mehdi houshmand]

Hi Glenn,

What we did isn't very complex, a 2000-odd page document filled with
Loret ipsum... That's about it, the font used was ArialUnicodeMS.ttf
and was embedded in the PDF. The version was i18n.arabic@09c38b8b and
the major blocking point was in TTFFile.java readGDEF(in) readGSUB(in)
and readGPOS(in). Commenting these out reduced the performance impact
from 150% to 110% as compared to trunk.

Mehdi

On 19 July 2011 15:02, Glenn Adams  wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the layout tests don't cover fonts,
> rendering". While it is true that those tests do not cover rendering, it
> does include use of fonts.
> Could you send me the "large latin only document" in FO form (preferably
> compressed if large), so I may test it?
> G.
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mehdi houshmand  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Glenn,
>>
>> We took a look at the complex scripts support, and a big chunk of the
>> code-base is in the fonts, and the layout tests don't cover fonts,
>> rendering etc. What are you finding for end-to-end performance? We
>> created a large latin only document and found about 50% increase in
>> time.
>>
>> Mehdi
>>
>> On 19 July 2011 14:36, Glenn Adams  wrote:
>> > Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the junit
>> > tests, I get the following:
>> >                           TRUNK     CMPLX     DIFF%
>> > junit-basic               4.87s     4.92s     1.01%
>> > junit-layout-standard    36.34s    36.72s     1.04%
>> > In the case of junit-layout-standard, there are 25 more tests run in the
>> > Complex Script branch.
>> > So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance based
>> > on
>> > this data.
>> > I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for enabling
>> > by
>> > default.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Pascal Sancho 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Glenn,
>> >>
>> >> IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the
>> >> performances.
>> >> Can you give an approximative impact?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
>> >> > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script
>> >> > features
>> >> > (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or
>> >> > both)
>> >> > command line option and config file element; the question I have is
>> >> > whether to enable or disable by default?
>> >> >
>> >> > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't
>> >> > want
>> >> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a
>> >> > minor
>> >> > performance penalty.
>> >> >
>> >> > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or
>> >> > want
>> >> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do
>> >> > something special to enable this support.
>> >> >
>> >> > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either
>> >> > way.
>> >> >
>> >> > G.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Pascal
>> >
>> >
>
>

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Glenn Adams]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the layout tests don't cover fonts,
rendering". While it is true that those tests do not cover rendering, it
does include use of fonts.

Could you send me the "large latin only document" in FO form (preferably
compressed if large), so I may test it?

G.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mehdi houshmand  wrote:

> Hi Glenn,
>
> We took a look at the complex scripts support, and a big chunk of the
> code-base is in the fonts, and the layout tests don't cover fonts,
> rendering etc. What are you finding for end-to-end performance? We
> created a large latin only document and found about 50% increase in
> time.
>
> Mehdi
>
> On 19 July 2011 14:36, Glenn Adams  wrote:
> > Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the junit
> > tests, I get the following:
> >   TRUNK CMPLX DIFF%
> > junit-basic   4.87s 4.92s 1.01%
> > junit-layout-standard36.34s36.72s 1.04%
> > In the case of junit-layout-standard, there are 25 more tests run in the
> > Complex Script branch.
> > So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance based
> on
> > this data.
> > I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for enabling
> by
> > default.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Pascal Sancho 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Glenn,
> >>
> >> IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the
> >> performances.
> >> Can you give an approximative impact?
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> >> > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script
> features
> >> > (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or
> both)
> >> > command line option and config file element; the question I have is
> >> > whether to enable or disable by default?
> >> >
> >> > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't
> want
> >> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a minor
> >> > performance penalty.
> >> >
> >> > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or
> want
> >> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do
> >> > something special to enable this support.
> >> >
> >> > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either
> way.
> >> >
> >> > G.
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pascal
> >
> >
>

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[mehdi houshmand]

Hi Glenn,

We took a look at the complex scripts support, and a big chunk of the
code-base is in the fonts, and the layout tests don't cover fonts,
rendering etc. What are you finding for end-to-end performance? We
created a large latin only document and found about 50% increase in
time.

Mehdi

On 19 July 2011 14:36, Glenn Adams  wrote:
> Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the junit
> tests, I get the following:
>                           TRUNK     CMPLX     DIFF%
> junit-basic               4.87s     4.92s     1.01%
> junit-layout-standard    36.34s    36.72s     1.04%
> In the case of junit-layout-standard, there are 25 more tests run in the
> Complex Script branch.
> So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance based on
> this data.
> I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for enabling by
> default.
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Pascal Sancho 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Glenn,
>>
>> IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the
>> performances.
>> Can you give an approximative impact?
>>
>>
>> Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
>> > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script features
>> > (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or both)
>> > command line option and config file element; the question I have is
>> > whether to enable or disable by default?
>> >
>> > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't want
>> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a minor
>> > performance penalty.
>> >
>> > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or want
>> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do
>> > something special to enable this support.
>> >
>> > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either way.
>> >
>> > G.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Pascal
>
>

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Christopher R. Maden]

On 07/19/2011 09:36 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance
> based on this data.
> 
> I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for
> enabling by default.

Agree.  For a feature of this magnitude, 1% is not a huge hit, and
presumably could continue to be improved with time and usage.

~Chris
-- 
Chris Maden, text nerd  http://crism.maden.org/ >
This week, the Transportation Security Administration intercepted and
searched a suspected war criminal and noted supporter of Saddam
Hussein, but permitted Donald Rumsfeld to board his flight anyway.

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Glenn Adams]

Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the junit
tests, I get the following:
  TRUNK CMPLX DIFF%
junit-basic   4.87s 4.92s 1.01%
junit-layout-standard36.34s36.72s 1.04%

In the case of junit-layout-standard, there are 25 more tests run in the
Complex Script branch.

So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance based on
this data.

I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for enabling by
default.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Pascal Sancho wrote:

> Hi Glenn,
>
> IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the
> performances.
> Can you give an approximative impact?
>
>
> Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script features
> > (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or both)
> > command line option and config file element; the question I have is
> > whether to enable or disable by default?
> >
> > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't want
> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a minor
> > performance penalty.
> >
> > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or want
> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do
> > something special to enable this support.
> >
> > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either way.
> >
> > G.
> >
>
> --
> Pascal
>

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Simon Pepping]

At the moment probably most users do not use complex scripts in FOP.
But by giving FOP complex scripts functionality, we hope to expand the
user base and their FOP usage, so that in the future maybe most users
will use complex scripts in FOP.

I am in favour of enabling complex scripts by default.

Simon

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 07:50:58AM -0400, Eric Douglas wrote:
> Good call.  You'll get more questions enabling it by default if most people 
> don't need it and it has a significant performance impact.
> "Why is this new version so much slower?"
> To my users, applications not crashing is the number one priority.  
> Performance is number two.
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Pascal Sancho [mailto:pascal.san...@takoma.fr] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:08 AM
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> Subject: Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?
> 
> Hi Glenn,
> 
> IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the 
> performances.
> Can you give an approximative impact?
> 
> 
> Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script 
> > features (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using 
> > either (or both) command line option and config file element; the 
> > question I have is whether to enable or disable by default?
> > 
> > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't 
> > want advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a 
> > minor performance penalty.
> > 
> > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or 
> > want advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to 
> > do something special to enable this support.
> > 
> > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either way.
> > 
> > G.
> > 
> 
> --
> Pascal

RE: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Eric Douglas]

Good call.  You'll get more questions enabling it by default if most people 
don't need it and it has a significant performance impact.
"Why is this new version so much slower?"
To my users, applications not crashing is the number one priority.  Performance 
is number two.
 

-Original Message-
From: Pascal Sancho [mailto:pascal.san...@takoma.fr] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:08 AM
To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Subject: Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

Hi Glenn,

IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the performances.
Can you give an approximative impact?


Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script 
> features (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using 
> either (or both) command line option and config file element; the 
> question I have is whether to enable or disable by default?
> 
> If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't 
> want advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a 
> minor performance penalty.
> 
> If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or 
> want advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to 
> do something special to enable this support.
> 
> What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either way.
> 
> G.
> 

--
Pascal

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Pascal Sancho]

Hi Glenn,

IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the
performances.
Can you give an approximative impact?


Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script features
> (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or both)
> command line option and config file element; the question I have is
> whether to enable or disable by default?
> 
> If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't want
> advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a minor
> performance penalty.
> 
> If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or want
> advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do
> something special to enable this support.
> 
> What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either way.
> 
> G.
> 

-- 
Pascal

Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?

[Jeremias Maerki]

I'd enable it by default. I think that results in fewer questions and
performance freaks can always disable it if you can make it configurable.

On 19.07.2011 03:40:56 Glenn Adams wrote:
> I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script features
> (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or both)
> command line option and config file element; the question I have is whether
> to enable or disable by default?
> 
> If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't want
> advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a minor
> performance penalty.
> 
> If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or want
> advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do
> something special to enable this support.
> 
> What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either way.
> 
> G.




Jeremias Maerki