Hi I believe probably we already did that. The biggest bottleneck we had was that renderers did many calls to map.get(). Mojarra had an optimization in this part, but MyFaces do not until 2.0.9/2.1.3, so I suppose with the latest code we have better numbers.
regards, Leonardo Uribe 2011/10/13 Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com>: > I would be interested as well, especially regarding their test setup, we > basically doubled for instance our ajax performance between 2.0.4 and the > current state of affairs. > > So it might be interesting to see what testsetup they were using. > From a pure memory point of view we of course have a higher load on the > browser because our ajax implementation deals with things mojarra does not > and also has an oo layer underneath. But I added browser specific > optimisations so on modern browsers we should be slightly faster than > mojarra in raw ajax processing (at least my personal tests resembled that > when I did the profiling), while mojarra is sligtly ahead on Firefox 3.5 and > IE6 and 7. > > Just giving the numbers unfortunately does not help to see where their > bottleneck was they discovered. > > > > Werner > > > Am 10/13/11 10:13 PM, schrieb Andy Schwartz: >> >> Gang - >> >> I recently got wind of the following web framework performance talk >> that was presented at JavaOne: >> >> >> https://oracleus.wingateweb.com/published/oracleus2011/sessions/24122/S24122_234496.pdf >> >> I did not attend, but based on the slides it looks like the presenters >> did an very thorough/systematic job of evaluating >> performance/scalability for a handful of web frameworks, including >> JSF. (I also have to say that they slides are simply beautiful - >> wow!) >> >> I wanted to call attention to this talk because I am concerned about >> one aspect of the results. Looking at slide #73, it seems that the >> presenters are seeing significant overhead in the MyFaces test runs >> (ie. vs. equivalent runs in Mojarra). I don't have any details other >> than the $ numbers included in the slides, but seems quite possible >> that there is some low-hanging fruit waiting to be picked (or >> optimized). >> >> Is anyone acquainted with the presenters? Perhaps it would be >> worthwhile to contact them to see whether it would be possible to take >> a closer look at the test case? >> >> Andy >> > > >
