[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33865?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Justin Mclean updated FLEX-33865:
---------------------------------

    Attachment: layout_performance.patch

I think we can all agree that the contents of this patch improves performance 
and can be checked in. It includes all changes except reusing the array. (BTW  
[] is faster and preferred over new Array() so I changed it to be that).

Benoit can you come up with a simple app that shows how the array changes 
improves GC? It certainly sounds like a reasonable assumption to me, but 
sometimes when testing performance issues you find unexpected things. As this 
class is used in layouts it does have a large knock on effect so it's best to 
make sure and double check this.

Thanks again for the patch, it improves layout performance which improves all 
layouts and not just mobile case you were investigating. I know this is taking 
some time to get into the SDK but we want to get it right.


> ConstraintLayout / LayoutElementHelper are memory inefficient (and slow)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLEX-33865
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33865
>             Project: Apache Flex
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Mobile: Performance, Spark: Layout
>    Affects Versions: Apache Flex 4.11.0
>         Environment: mobile desktop
>            Reporter: Benoit Wiart
>            Assignee: Maurice Amsellem
>              Labels: mobile, performance
>         Attachments: 0001-ConstraintLayout-optimizationsV2.patch, 
> desktopafter.png, desktopbefore.png, layout-1-desktop-memory.png, 
> layout-2-desktop-memory.png, layout-3-mobile-memory.png, 
> layout_performance.patch
>
>
> ConstraintLayout / LayoutElementHelper are doing too many memory allocation.
> it's really bad on mobile
> the attached screenshots were taken on desktop



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

Reply via email to