On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:53:04 +0000 "Helder Magalhães" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> As far as I know, this number of changes will be typically more > >> than feasible for Batik. > > > However, 80 changes a second is not impossible for Batik. > > Oops, sounds that my writing wasn't very clear (or, at least, not > clear enough). ;-) I understood you. I guess I wasn't clear enough in supporting your statement.<grin/> > With "more than feasible for Batik" I wasn't meaning it was > overwhelming for it, on the contrary: my results show that this is > generally accomplished even more efficiently than other native > implementations such as modern Web browsers (Firefox, Opera, Webkit). > Processor usage is kept pretty low and memory consumed is good as > well, both in absolute values and in comparison to other > implementations. :-) As further confirmation, my tests covered Batik, Firefox, and Opera. I was quite pleasantly surprise by how they all performed. But, in a few cases, Batik's performance left me stunned. After I finish this write-up, I plan more tests to push the the edges a bit more. I'd like to be able to show what kinds of operations have a negative performance impact and how many operations at a time we can manage. G. Wade -- The man who says he is willing to meet you halfway is usually a poor judge of distance. -- Laurence J. Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
