myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gabrielle Crawford <gabrielle.crawf...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: [Trinidad] remove application view cache in Trinidad 2?
Date Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:47:17 GMT
thanks!

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1653

Gabrielle

Martin Koci wrote:
> Max Starets píše v Út 01. 12. 2009 v 20:42 -0500:
>   
>> Gabrielle,
>>
>> I think the main advantage of using application view cache is that state 
>> saving/view root caching is done once for a particular page
>> within an application (that only applies to pages displayed in response 
>> to a GET request).
>>
>> Since we have seen some issues with the current implementation, I would 
>> vote for not supporting application view cache
>> in Trinidad 2. Partial state saving should make its benefits much less 
>> tangible. 
>>     
> Yes, I did some profiling few moths ago before we migrated to JSF 2.0
> state saving and I can confirm that same very complex view written:
>
> - as .jspx + trinidad state saving + trinidad components + application
> view cache
> - and as .xhtml + mojarra partial state saving + base JSF components 
>
> doesn't have performance problem (even no regression with .xhtml) in
> both cases regarding state saving. +1 for removing application view
> cache in trinidad 2.0
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin Kočí
>
> If there is demand for this feature in the future,
>   
>> we can revisit it and try to address the issues we have seen.
>>
>> Max
>>
>>
>>
>> Gabrielle Crawford wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm working on state saving issues in Trinidad 2 (for JSF 2). I'm just 
>>> wondering if we really want to support application view cache going 
>>> forward.
>>>
>>> The application view cache has some limitations that make me wonder 
>>> how commonly it's used, see the doc under "The Application View Cache"
>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/devguide/configuration.html 
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe more importantly, I'm not sure, but I think the reason it exists 
>>> is to avoid rerunning the tags? Is rerunning tags as much of an issue 
>>> with facelets? If not, maybe we should just say to move to facelets in 
>>> 2.0.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Gabrielle
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>     
>
>
>   

Mime
View raw message