Thanks for clarifying... that makes sense. I guess I didn't quite understand what he was doing.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:54 AM, brett.wooldridge < brett.wooldri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not high data rates, but large arrays. He said he sends different > length arrays containing a pojo that itself contains 10 strings of 10 > chars average. In the error case, that is an array with 100,000 > elements, which are themselves objects with 10 strings of 10 chars > each. That's a 10meg "object" being serialized over GWT-RPC -- I'm > not surprised that various JavaScript engines fell over. > > Again, it's not about data rate, but object size. The only > implication for data rate was that a 10 element array containing 10 > pojos with 10 strings of 10 characters took between 10-30ms to send. > Interesting but not very informative. Sending that same array in a > loop 1000 times would be more interesting. Likely there are runtime > optimizations -- especially on the Java side, but also on browsers > like Safari -- that will start to kick-in once the engine has profiled > what is going on. > > Brett > > > On Sep 15, 3:25 am, John Ivens <john.wagner.iv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey, this is scary... Firefox, Netscape and Safari all error out at high > > data rates? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:03 AM, lord.luki <lord.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, maybe it wont be helpfull, but there si some response time testing > > > whitch i did. I was testing gwt-rpc from client to gwt embedet server > > > (Jetty). I was sending pojo object which contained 10 strings each > > > with average length 10 chars. In table below is time in miliseconds > > > for difrent lengths of arraylist containing this pojo objects. (From > > > 10 to 100 000 objects). > > > I also had to add -Xmx512M parameter for last column. > > > > > lenght: | 10 100 1000 10000 100000 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Fire Fox | 18 30 120 1200 error > > > Chrome | 10 14 68 900 24000 > > > IE | 13 40 230 3300 150000 > > > Opera | 32 47 130 1300 27700 > > > "hosted" | 340 2500 25000 249000 3270898 > > > Netscape| 20 47 220 2800 error > > > Safari | 10 19 70 1300 error > > > > > ps: yes it is 54 minutes for hosted mode :-D. > > > > > On Sep 13, 10:37 pm, ben fenster <fenster....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin > > > > considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big > > > > enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side > > > > request handler > > > > > > i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per > > > > second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be > > > > much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it > > > > out > > > > On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster <fenster....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with > server > > > > > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) > > > > > > > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using > GWT- > > > > > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
