Thanks guys, I filed WICKET-6506.
-Lon
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Emond Papegaaij wrote:
> Martin is right. It seems like you found a regression in the changes made
> for
> WICKET-6021. In general, the performance was increased by those changes,
> but
>
Martin is right. It seems like you found a regression in the changes made for
WICKET-6021. In general, the performance was increased by those changes, but
evidently not in this case. Please create a JIRA issue and attach a quickstart
that shows the problem. That should help us debug this
In 7.2 we modified the markupcontainer's storage of its children to
accommodate large numbers of children. The original structure gave adding
children a O(N^2) complexity, so it was changed to become O(1) for N>some
value.
Apparently your use case is not part of our setup and we should see what
Performance is no joking mantter =)
2017-12-13 3:56 GMT+02:00 Lon Varscsak :
> Haha, sure…I was sure someone was going to argue with me. :P
>
> -Lon
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Martin Makundi <
> martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:
>
> > Good find! Sounds
Haha, sure…I was sure someone was going to argue with me. :P
-Lon
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Martin Makundi <
martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:
> Good find! Sounds like a bug, file to jira?
>
> 2017-12-12 23:38 GMT+02:00 Lon Varscsak :
>
> > Okay, so
Good find! Sounds like a bug, file to jira?
2017-12-12 23:38 GMT+02:00 Lon Varscsak :
> Okay, so here's the situation, I have a component where an Ajax request
> displays a large table (1000ish rows). It display fast, no problem, not a
> great use of resources (not
Okay, so here's the situation, I have a component where an Ajax request
displays a large table (1000ish rows). It display fast, no problem, not a
great use of resources (not paginating), but ignore that for now. I then
have another Ajax request where I tell the wicket component to not be
visible