Hi John, "John C. Turnbull" <[email protected]> wrote on 02/09/2009 02:50:16 PM:
> How would I go about implementing SVG DOM interaction in a browser- > based script? I am guessing I would need to change the script to > call the Batik Java methods that access the DOM ? is that how you > see it? I don't know how they bind Java classes/objects into the browser script implementation. > Are you aware of any overheads from repeatedly invoking > Java methods from a JavaScript script? If that?s going to be slow > then there?s no point in me proceeding because, as you say, most of > my scripts rely on the SVG DOM. I really don't know much of anything about calling Java from browser script engines. All of my comments have been based on my general understanding of things (which is why I was curious about other projects that might have done something similar). > > Cheers, > > John > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, 9 February 2009 22:05 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Scripting in Batik applets > > > Hi John, > > "John C. Turnbull" <[email protected]> wrote on 02/02/2009 07:06:07 AM: > > > Do you think that the scripts would run using the browser scripting > > engine as they are or would they need modification? > > It depends entirely on what the script does. If it's not talking > to the SVG DOM then the script should just run in the browser engine. > If the script is calling/querying the SVG DOM then I think it will > need to be modified. > > > I am no ECMAScript guru unfortunately. Anyway, browser delivery of my > > applet(s) is very important and I would be interested in evaluating > > the performance gains or otherwise achievable by using the browser?s > > scripting engine but only if it?s actually achievable and doable. I > > agree that the Java-to-JavaScript interface may be the bottleneck > > but I?d like to prove it one way or the other. I am hoping it?s > > just a matter of passing the script over to the browser and then > > passing the result(s) back to the applet but clearly, depending on > > the nature of the script, this may involve a lot more interaction. > > See above, I don't know what your scripts are doing but my guess > is that most of your scripts will be interacting with the DOM. > > > So if it doesn?t involve wholesale changes to the scripts themselves > > then I would like to have a go at a benchmark. > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, 2 February 2009 22:18 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Scripting in Batik applets > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > "John C. Turnbull" <[email protected]> wrote on 02/01/2009 06:46:41 PM: > > > > > In an applet environment, I believe Rhino cannot use compiled > > > scripts and hence the performance of those scripts is worse than in > > > an application environment. Now, given that most browser vendors > > > have introduced JIT compilers for JavaScript, how difficult would it > > > be to replace the use of Rhino in Batik applets with the browser?s > > > JavaScript engine? I imagine there would have to be some changes to > > > the scripts themselves but Java/JavaScript interaction has greatly > > > improved since Java 6 Update 10 and using Batik in an applet > > > environment is very important to me. > > > > I don't know what you are doing in the script but I suspect that > > Batik's performance is generally limited by the underlying Java code > > not the JavaScript. If you are doing heavy duty operations in script > > it might make sense to do those in the browsers script engine and > > then send the results across to the Applet. If your script is > > interacting heavily with the SVG DOM then it wouldn't surprise me if > > the extra overhead of the Browser<->Java communication would defeat > > the gain from using the Browser script engine. > > > > In short while it might be a win in a few cases I suspect that > > the general case is likely to be a wash or close to it, but if anyone > > has benchmarks or something from projects that have done something > > similar I'd be interested in hearing about them.
