Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
Your latest proposal sounds good.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message - From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Dynamic registration of databindings, was: 0.91 Memory
Fo
Hi,
Your latest proposal sounds good.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Dynamic registration of databindings, was: 0.91 Memory
Footprint
Jean-Sebasti
e
source = "DB1"
target = "DB2"
weight = 100
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message - From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Dynamic registration of databindings, was: 0.91 Memory
Footpr
target = "DB2"
weight = 100
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message - From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Dynamic registration of databindings, was: 0.91 Memory Footprint
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wr
;
weight = 100
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Dynamic registration of databindings, was: 0.91 Memory Footprint
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
[EMAIL PROTEC
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We recently migrated our version of Tuscany from M2 to 0.91, and we
noticed that the memory consumption seems to have increased by quite
a bit. When doing memory profiling, the culprit appeared to be
classes related to Xerces DOM (Deferred
