On the wiki now ...

http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/Bandwidth

Dennis Byrne

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lindholm, Greg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 02:07 PM
>To: 'MyFaces Discussion'
>Subject: RE: Big increase in page size between 1.1.1 and 1.1.4
>
>Thanks, that made a hugh difference.  Looks like the sizes are about the
>same as before, maybe just slightly larger.
>
>Greg 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dennis Byrne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:55 PM
>To: MyFaces Discussion
>Subject: Re: Big increase in page size between 1.1.1 and 1.1.4
>
>Hi Greg,
>
>Yes, it was changed ...
>
>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-commits/200606.mbox/%3C
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Many of us have observed compression of the state to be a performance
>killer.
>
>Can you please try placing the following context parameter, set to true,
>in web.xml ?
>
>org.apache.myfaces.COMPRESS_STATE_IN_CLIENT 
>
>Once you confirm this works, I will put this in the wiki.  And yes,
>sorry for writing the code but not writing the documentation.
>
>Dennis Byrne
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Lindholm, Greg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:39 PM
>>To: users@myfaces.apache.org
>>Subject: Big increase in page size between 1.1.1 and 1.1.4
>>
>>I'm upgrading from MyFaces+Tomahawk 1.1.1 to 1.1.4.
>>I'm using client side state saving.
>>
>>There is a big increase in page size between 1.1.1 and 1.1.4.
>>One of my bigger screens went from ~225K to ~700K (over 3x) and most of
>>my 
>>smaller screens doubled in size. 
>>That's just the page, not counting all the links to images,
>stylesheets,
>>
>>javascript etc.
>>
>>Is this expected?
>>Did the way client side state saving encoding change to be less
>>efficient?
>>Is there any options to reduce the size?
>>
>>I know there are things I can do to reduce the sizes but this 
>>was as close as I can get to an apples to apples comparison between 
>>1.1.1 and 1.1.4, same apps, same data, only diff was the upgrade.
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


Reply via email to