Leonardo, does 2.0.6 share the same memory consumption improvements? ___ Kito D. Mann | twitter: kito99 | Author, JSF in Action Virtua, Inc. | http://www.virtua.com | JSF/Java EE training and consulting http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info | twitter: jsfcentral +1 203-404-4848 x3
* Listen to the latest headlines in the JSF and Java EE newscast: http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/roller/editorsdesk/category/JSF+and+Java+EE+Newscast * Sign up for the JSFCentral newsletter: http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > Some days ago Thomas Andraschko told on users list that he already > have a variant of this for MyFaces. Look the mail with subject: > > "Weird PlexusContainer object in ViewRoot" > > I think it is a good idea to put that code in myfaces commons or as an > extension (extensions/stateless-jsf ?). Since the license of the code > is ASL, it is possible to host it here. To make this possible I think > we should vote about create a module. > > @Thomas: could you create an issue on myfaces issue tracker: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES > > and attach the code you are working on, so the PMC can vote if it is > worth to create the subproject? > > About performance of MyFaces code vs Mojarra: I think with the latest > changes MyFaces code looks very good. Yes, there is a lot of room from > improvement. I think it is possible to do things like trim spaces in > facelets compiler, remove <!-- --> on the scripts (it is there because > very early versions of MyFaces do that), or optimize js rendering > using some myfaces specific code instead call javax.faces js api. But > note recent optimization in myfaces renderers has been improved its > base speed. If you exclude the javascript rendering part, MyFaces > renderers looks good. > > I think we should let those optimizations for 2.2. The only thing left > to start working on that branch is reorganize shared modules (split > shared in two, cleanup and maybe create myfaces-impl-api submodule to > hold stuff like spi interfaces and other myfaces-impl api to be used > for integration points). > > Right now, MyFaces 2.1.6 uses a lot less memory, and recent > improvements into its PSS algorithm has reduced the required state > size for views, making it very efficient. > > regards, > > Leonardo Uribe > > 2012/2/9 Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com>: > > Hia just a general discussion, regarding performance. One of the big > > performance impacts is statefulness, now there has been a project > > > > > http://industrieit.com/blog/2011/11/stateless-jsf-high-performance-zero-per-request-memory-overhead/ > > > > This however is only for Mojarra, shouldnt we target something similar, > one > > day or the other it will be part of the spec, so targetting this early > might > > give the mojarra guys a push for going there also. > > > > If you look at the numbers you can see there is a lot to gain by being > able > > to render pages stateless one way or the other. > > I personally think in the typical extranet site, most pages are able to > go > > stateless and about 5-10% should be stateful, that way we could cover > both. > > > > Another performance issue I still have gripes with is the rendered code. > > For a small page we on the average still have way more code rendered than > > Mojarra, in some cases up to 40%. Which is a lot. > > > > While we already did some work regarding our onclick event javascript > calls, > > there is still lots of room for optimization in our code. > > For instance we render <!-- --> with all linebreaks and spaces between > link > > and script tags intact. > > > > Mojarra basically strips all unneeded stuff and renders only the script > and > > link tags without any blanks. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > >
