myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Web Framework Performance Comparision
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:20:14 GMT
Yes from what i gather one of the issues they had in the slides was the 
overall page size. The question there is more along the lines what did 
they count, just the rendered code, or also the includes.

I can help to reduce the size on the JSF.js side. We have some code
which is not directly active for JSF 2.1 and will very likely become 
part of jsf 2.2 or 2.3. it can be used today already by adding config 
params, Also we have some internationalization
of the internal error messages.

This code could be externalized into an addition js file for people who 
need it. I think we might save around 20Kbytes that way.

I personally did not think that it was necessary due to the fact that 
the js files usually are gzipped while still bigger than mojarra we 
after gzipping the file talk about sizes of 10-30k etc...

In the end externalizing that code would have caused more burden on the 
users than it would have helped. But given that mojarra just implements 
the raw api and nothing else and does not take some corner conditions 
into consideration and has no browser optimizations they are 
significantly smaller in their jsf.js file and if our size is a problem 
we can reduce it.




Werner


Am 10/13/11 11:07 PM, schrieb Leonardo Uribe:
> Hi
>
> I believe probably we already did that. The biggest bottleneck we had
> was that renderers did many calls to map.get(). Mojarra had an
> optimization in this part, but MyFaces do not until 2.0.9/2.1.3, so I
> suppose with the latest code we have better numbers.
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> 2011/10/13 Werner Punz<werner.punz@gmail.com>:
>> I would be interested as well, especially regarding their test setup, we
>> basically doubled for instance our ajax performance between 2.0.4 and the
>> current state of affairs.
>>
>> So it might be interesting to see what testsetup they were using.
>>  From a pure memory point of view we of course have a higher load on the
>> browser because our ajax implementation deals with things mojarra does not
>> and also has an oo layer underneath. But I added browser specific
>> optimisations so on modern browsers we should be slightly faster than
>> mojarra in raw ajax processing (at least my personal tests resembled that
>> when I did the profiling), while mojarra is sligtly ahead on Firefox 3.5 and
>> IE6 and 7.
>>
>> Just giving the numbers unfortunately does not help to see where their
>> bottleneck was they discovered.
>>
>>
>>
>> Werner
>>
>>
>> Am 10/13/11 10:13 PM, schrieb Andy Schwartz:
>>>
>>> Gang -
>>>
>>> I recently got wind of the following web framework performance talk
>>> that was presented at JavaOne:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://oracleus.wingateweb.com/published/oracleus2011/sessions/24122/S24122_234496.pdf
>>>
>>> I did not attend, but based on the slides it looks like the presenters
>>> did an very thorough/systematic job of evaluating
>>> performance/scalability for a handful of web frameworks, including
>>> JSF.  (I also have to say that they slides are simply beautiful -
>>> wow!)
>>>
>>> I wanted to call attention to this talk because I am concerned about
>>> one aspect of the results.  Looking at slide #73, it seems that the
>>> presenters are seeing significant overhead in the MyFaces test runs
>>> (ie. vs. equivalent runs in Mojarra).  I don't have any details other
>>> than the $ numbers included in the slides, but seems quite possible
>>> that there is some low-hanging fruit waiting to be picked (or
>>> optimized).
>>>
>>> Is anyone acquainted with the presenters?  Perhaps it would be
>>> worthwhile to contact them to see whether it would be possible to take
>>> a closer look at the test case?
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



Mime
View raw message