With the request logger you can turn on logging of the session size * boolean * getRecordSessionSize() if you want to record 1 specific pages you should just do that in Requestcycle.detach johan
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:19, Vladimir K <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can wicket help with estimating page size in bytes? (or in cucumbers if the > size of a cucumber is defined). I would like to keep pages footprint in > session as short as possible. > > P.S. > JSF certainly can be slower than DB, especially when you use Seam and SFSB > as a page backing bean. It is easy to understand if you know that you have > several approaches to improve DB performance, just hire DBA and understand > the lifecycles of your entities and put them into appropriate cache. From > the other hand with JSF you just can do NOTHING. Just get rid of JSF (in > favor of Wicket for instance). JSF is a perverted framework. It is like > Visual Basic for the Java Web applications. It is just for designing hotel > booking sites. > > > uwe janner wrote: > > > > we did a performance comparison between wicket and jsf in january, and > for > > our usecases wicket was the clear winner (about factor 4). wicket was > > nearly > > as fast as our old struts implementation. > > btw, we used wicket together with seam, which also did not add much to > the > > execution times. > > > > uwe. > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Peter Thomas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> LOL at Jeremy's definitive quote :) > >> > >> Coming to original post - Munna: there is some comparative info on > >> performance and memory usage here: > >> > >> > >> > http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seam-jsf-vs-wicket-performance-comparison/ > >> > >> Hope this helps. > >> > >> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Jeremy Thomerson < > >> [email protected] > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > Does this count? > >> > > >> > "It's really fast" - quote from Jeremy Thomerson in his email written > >> > Sunday, April 26. > >> > > >> > Sorry - couldn't resist a little laugh. I never put much faith in > >> > other people's "performance benchmarks" because they are typically > >> > little more than anecdotal evidence of their limited experience with X > >> > over Z. But here's my anecdotal "benchmark" - I've never debugged an > >> > application where Wicket was the *slow* part of the application. And > >> > I've debugged a lot of Wicket applications. It's always the DB layer. > >> > Occasionally something resource intensive in the service layer. But > >> > always the DB layer. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Jeremy Thomerson > >> > http://www.wickettraining.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Munna Ramjee <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > Hi All, > >> > > Are there any performance benchmarks posted anywhere for Wicket? > >> > > Thanks in advance for the help. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Munna. > >> > > > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Performance-Benchmarks-tp23248583p23252707.html > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
