[gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Hi Guys, I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? Thanks for your help, Daniel -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Comment on NoClassMetadataOptimization in google-web-toolkit
Comment by moorsu: Please note that the spelling of the compile flag. It should be -XdisableClassMetadata For more information: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/NoClassMetadataOptimization -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Comment on NoClassMetadataOptimization in google-web-toolkit
Comment by moorsu:
Please note the spelling of the compiler flag.
It should be
{{{
-XdisableClassMetadata
}}}
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/NoClassMetadataOptimization
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] JSIO vs Overlay Types
Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API is that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't supported by the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about performance in the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on the map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes there. Thanks again, Daniel On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote: Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it predates overlay types. On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, and am wondering about the difference in performance between the two approaches. With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a reference to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that the performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I am just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in performance is between the two approaches? First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps instead of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If there is something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that rather than create your own from scratch? Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator running which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of difference. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
