SGTM. I've got more to add once it's in. On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:29 PM, <rj...@google.com> wrote:
> Picked up last rounds of feedback from Joel (EmptyBinder weirdness), > Thomas and James. Also checkstyle fixes. > > Barring further objections, I'll submit this in the morning. There are > more tests that could be implemented (Joel may have written them > already), but I'd like to get in what I have. > > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/127801/diff/2005/2013 > File > > reference/Microbenchmarks/src/com/google/gwt/reference/microbenchmark/client/TestDom.java > (right): > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/127801/diff/2005/2013#newcode58 > Line 58: e.removeAttribute("id"); > If I delete it I'll have to generate unique ids at runtime, and do > string concatenation then too. Hard to imagine that being a win. > > I like the move-it-around idea, though. Now doing it after detach. Can't > say I see a big difference that way, get by id still clearly loses. > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/127801/diff/2005/2021 > File > > reference/Microbenchmarks/src/com/google/gwt/reference/microbenchmark/client/WidgetCreation.java > (right): > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/127801/diff/2005/2021#newcode58 > Line 58: return (new Date()).getTime(); > Thanks, didn't know about that. > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/127801/diff/2005/2021#newcode157 > Line 157: widgets[widgets.length - 1].getElement().getOffsetTop(); > On 2010/01/02 09:01:46, jamesr wrote: > >> You should query offsetTop on the <body> element instead of trying to >> > grab some > >> child element - it'll still do layout on everything in the document. >> > > Another problem with setTimeout(0) is that the the '0' will get >> > rounded up to a > >> larger value that's not consistent between browsers - one of 4, 10, or >> > 15ms. > > Done. > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/127801 > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
