From: Pascal B. <pa...@dy...> - 2001-02-20 21:11:22
|
ke.. some thoughts. Javascript is interpreted.. so all of your Pentium /cpu ops. might not be of any concern. We need to make sure the JS parser handles it the quickest.. this could pose another set of rules then your cpu rules. Sadly we have no clue on how the JS parsers work, and what they like more, so we should try these things first before using the compiled language like optimisations. Pascal Bestebroer pa...@dy... http://www.dynamic-core.net > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: dyn...@li... > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Raymond Smith > Verzonden: dinsdag 20 februari 2001 21:51 > Aan: dyn...@li... > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Freeing Memory > > > I'm really beginning to think there are two sides to this issue. > > 1) Design Methodology. > 2) Code Optimization. > > 1) Eytan eluded to this here, "and then nullify them nothing happens but > when you recreate them still the memory stays stable". Today > most sites are > page based, and I think within a common site URL browsers attempt to "hold > history active" till you leave to an all new destination, then > purge memory. > > Everything I have been trying to do is based on using the DynAPI > to create a > single interface linked to a dynamically created, updated and > evolving site. > Think of the JS as providing "interface" only. Then you would use dynamic > content engines to pump new content into "reusable components" > using set"xx" > methods (heck you could even reskin an object on the fly). This is the > direction the web is moving anyway with CSS and XML anyway. > > There's no reason you couldn't initialize a series of display widgets then > call them in, resize them and modify content based on user activities. I > think page based browsing + DynAPI (with any level of pizzazz) is a recipe > for failure. It will eventually overload the system since every page is > going to want it's own widget set. Design would be based on > creating sites > with as tight a "widget depth (how many total layers)" as possible. Reuse > widgets (if possible) prior to creating new instances of a prototype. > > 2) Optimization. I came from a game developer > www.angelstudios.com. I was > COO and I found the business of "making games" slow and boring. > The idea of > waiting and working 2 years to see if you have a winner to only see the > "bounty" get slyly skimmed into the publishers pockets grows old fast). > Hence, I left the Industry for the fast paced insanity of the > web. But game > developers are optimization freaks, they have to be. > > I did a little research (I wasn't a programmer, I made sure they > didn't eat > to many Twinkies during a specified month because at Angel we > bought all the > Twinkies for our employees; kept them coding longer), and just from a > "tricks of the trade standpoint" our code could be significantly optimized > with a skew towards the Pentium processor set. I'm sure with additional > research we could learn even more. Here's what I found so far: > > a) API's, in general, are non-optimizied. DirectX works (as an API) > because it was designed to be as "thin" as possible. > > b) Use global variables. Don't use parameters for allot of time-critical > functions, instead use a global parameter passing area. Example: > > void Plot(init x, init y, init color) { > // plots a pixel on the screen > video_buffer{x +y*MEMORY_PITCH] = color; > } > > optimized > > int gx,gy,gz,color; //define globals > > void Plot_G(void) { > video_buffer[gx + gy*MEMORY_PITCH] = color; > } > > I realize we are an API, but implementing aspects of this where > appropriate > will help. > > 2) Always use 32-bit variables rather then 8- or 16-bit. The Pentium and > later processors are all 32-bit. This means they don't like 8- or 16-bit > data words, and in fact, smaller data can slow them down due to > caching and > other related memory anomalies. Example: > > struct CPOINT { > short x,y; > unsigned char c; > } > > Optimized > > struct CPOINT { > int x,y; > int c; > } > > I don't think this applies a great deal to the current API but I > am sharing > it anyway. > > 3) Program in a RISC-like (reduced instruction set computer) manner. In > other words make code simple rather then complex. Pentium class > processors > like simple instructions rather then complex ones. Longer simpler code is > faster then short complex code structures. Example: > > if ((x+=(2*buffer[index++])>10) { > do stuff... > } > > Optimized > > x+=(2*buffer[index]); > index++; > > if (x>10) { > do stuff... > } > > We do sin here a bit.... > > 4) Use binary shifts for simple multiplication of integers by > powers of 2. > Since all data in a computer is stored in a binary form, shifting the bit > pattern to the left or right is equivalent to multiplication or division. > Example: > > int y_pos = 10: > // multiple y_pos by 64 > y_pos = (y_pos << 6); //2^6=64 > > Similarly, > > //to divide y_pos by 8 > y_pos = (y_pos >> 3); // 1/2^3 = 1/8 > > Disadvantage... confusing code to some. > > 5) Write efficient algorithms. > > 6) Don't write complex data structures for simple objects. > > 7) Don't go crazy with inheritance and layers of software. Keep the base > as lean as possible. > > 8) The Pentium-class processors use an internal data and code cache. Be > aware of this, and try to keep the size of your functions relatively small > so they can fit into the cache (16KB-32KB+). Store data in an accessible > way, it minimizes cache thrashing and main memory or secondary > cache access, > which is 10 times slower than the internal cache. > > 9) Use precomputed "look-up tables" when possible. > > > So, I think that freeing memory and optimizing speed will be the > marriage of > a quality site design/interface and a well constructed code base to draw > from. While some users will elect to take a more conventional > path I think > this will ultimately lead the the best "final result". But hey! > I'm just a > designer... > > Ray > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > |
From: Pascal <pb...@oi...> - 2001-02-21 07:53:45
|
Well to get this said in time: I think that any moves towards a DynAPI3 should be on a seperate sourceforge project (or atleast other location). I have absolutely no interest in doing everything all over again or even participating in a venture like that. The DynAPI2 has been in development for little more then a year now, and we "made" everyone drop the dynapi1 in favour of DynAPI2 saying "dynapi1 is discontinued, dynapi2 will support ie55 and ns6 and other new browsers, it's better more flexible and you should just use it" Now you guys are thinking about doing it all over again.. this means you'r saying to all the users (and there are ALOT) sorry people, now you'll have to use this unfinished-slightly-not-100%-working version of a crossbrowser library because we're going to redo everything. Most people here haven't been involved with the full developing of the DynAPI, I can think of only 3 persons at this moment that have been participating in the development for this long period (and still only about 3-5 persons doing all the stuff: documentation, bug fixing, patches, administrating, etc). In one more year, alot of you will have abonded the API3 completely, leaving only a few guys on board.. the API will work crossbrowser partially, and not fully supporting the latest browsers (by that time something like versions 110 of those browsers and DOM20)... Seen it happen already with this code, don't want to redo it just to end up with the same thing. In the beginning we had clean code, it was backwards compatible and was nice to look at, but didn't had the powerfull functionality it has now.. There's not much wrong with the current API, the only thing is that no body ever took the time to go thru the code and optimise it. I for one will keep working on THIS version of the API and know it can be cleaned up, and make it work on any other future browsers coming our way. let the flaming begin. Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...) Software ontwikkelaar Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v. http://www.oibv.com |
From: Raymond S. <dst...@or...> - 2001-02-21 09:44:59
|
<emote> pulls out blow torch, flick and ignites a cold blue flame.... First off, I can understand your passion, and if you go all the way back to the very first "lets stop and think about it first, then act" post you will see that above alpha-next-generation-anything was finish up DynAPI2. Secondly, beginning discussions (which you should definitely be involved in) on the planning stages of the next generation of "this" API is certainly appropriate at this time. The format that was presented was one of brushstroke self-appraisal with an eye towards what we would like the next evolution of this API to be capable of. Not one mention of "abandon and run" removing the potential for backward compatibility. Which I think should be a serious consideration in this "planning" stage. At this stage not a single "anything" has been agreed upon. There have been lots of discussions related to super-class this, client-side that. I only interceded to try and frame and consolidated these "loose" discussions into a more productive format based on mutual collaboration. Hence references to UML, whiteboards and the need to really think before we type. But... Based on your most recent rock-throw I personally would like to see this discussion focus on one thing. What we would like to do. Personally, I am looking to the Pascal's and Rainwater's for leadership here. I'm only attempting to contribute my time and energies to help push the ball along. I've posted 3 times with queries for "input" and received little in the form of response. One thread asked which of 3 distinctly different endpoint objectives we have for this API. Attached: (1) A set of surface enhancing widgets for general layman use. Menu, windows, navigation devices. (2) A series of linkable components (server and/or client) that can manage and present information dynamically within the library of server-side widgets(1). (3) Both. An API that allows the generalist to enhance their site using the API that also has hooks developed into it that allows a more serious implementation embracing the whole information interchange circuit; client to server-side. As Robert has pointed out these "hooks" could be developed to allow the user language implementation flexibility. Answer this question will go along way to adding a lot of clarity as to what next-steps in this Open Source Forum, based on and proposing to extend DynAPI2. To be honest I was a little disillusioned with the overall response to what I was proposing. And I'm certainly not interested in expending a large amount of my time for nothing. So,... Lets decide. I think your negative whiplash reaction was a little premature, but knowing the passions of Pascal I understand it. <emotes> flips blow torch in the air and extends the hand towards the rest of you all. |
From: Jordi - I. - M. <jmi...@or...> - 2001-02-21 10:36:45
|
The audience is listening. Try not to let these not-so-enthusiastic responses get into you. It happens to everybody: posting the results of many hours of work, expecting at least not to be ignored, and then receiving nothing but silence. I believe you're going the right way. Usually people post to disagree because they feel things are moving towards somewhere they don't like and/or is of no interest for their personal usage of the API. When things go right then people is most likely to adopt a confortable attitude. He who remains silent concedes. Raymond Smith wrote: > <emote> pulls out blow torch, flick and ignites a cold blue flame.... > > First off, I can understand your passion, and if you go all the way back to > the very first "lets stop and think about it first, then act" post you will > see that above alpha-next-generation-anything was finish up DynAPI2. > > Secondly, beginning discussions (which you should definitely be involved in) > on the planning stages of the next generation of "this" API is certainly > appropriate at this time. The format that was presented was one of > brushstroke self-appraisal with an eye towards what we would like the next > evolution of this API to be capable of. > > Not one mention of "abandon and run" removing the potential for backward > compatibility. Which I think should be a serious consideration in this > "planning" stage. > > At this stage not a single "anything" has been agreed upon. There have been > lots of discussions related to super-class this, client-side that. I only > interceded to try and frame and consolidated these "loose" discussions into > a more productive format based on mutual collaboration. Hence references to > UML, whiteboards and the need to really think before we type. > > But... > > Based on your most recent rock-throw I personally would like to see this > discussion focus on one thing. > > What we would like to do. > > Personally, I am looking to the Pascal's and Rainwater's for leadership > here. I'm only attempting to contribute my time and energies to help push > the ball along. I've posted 3 times with queries for "input" and received > little in the form of response. > > One thread asked which of 3 distinctly different endpoint objectives we have > for this API. Attached: > > (1) A set of surface enhancing widgets for general layman use. Menu, > windows, navigation devices. > (2) A series of linkable components (server and/or client) that can manage > and present information dynamically within the library of server-side > widgets(1). > (3) Both. An API that allows the generalist to enhance their site using the > API that also has hooks developed into it that allows a more serious > implementation embracing the whole information interchange circuit; client > to server-side. As Robert has pointed out these "hooks" could be developed > to allow the user language implementation flexibility. > > Answer this question will go along way to adding a lot of clarity as to what > next-steps in this Open Source Forum, based on and proposing to extend > DynAPI2. > > To be honest I was a little disillusioned with the overall response to what > I was proposing. And I'm certainly not interested in expending a large > amount of my time for nothing. > > So,... > > Lets decide. I think your negative whiplash reaction was a little > premature, but knowing the passions of Pascal I understand it. > > <emotes> flips blow torch in the air and extends the hand towards the rest > of you all. > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
From: Jordi - I. - M. <jmi...@or...> - 2001-02-21 09:48:06
|
Amen. However Pascal I don't think anyone pretends to redo the API. We should blame Raymond ( as usual :) ) because he introduced the 3 in the name and made it all look scary. When we're saying DynAPI3 I understand we're meaning DynAPI2 with better and cleaner code, not a new API. Pascal wrote: > Well to get this said in time: > > I think that any moves towards a DynAPI3 should be on a seperate sourceforge > project (or atleast other location). > > I have absolutely no interest in doing everything all over again or even > participating in a venture like that. > > The DynAPI2 has been in development for little more then a year now, and we > "made" everyone drop the dynapi1 in favour of DynAPI2 saying "dynapi1 is > discontinued, dynapi2 will support ie55 and ns6 and other new browsers, it's > better more flexible and you should just use it" > > Now you guys are thinking about doing it all over again.. this means you'r > saying to all the users (and there are ALOT) sorry people, now you'll have > to use this unfinished-slightly-not-100%-working version of a crossbrowser > library because we're going to redo everything. > > Most people here haven't been involved with the full developing of the > DynAPI, I can think of only 3 persons at this moment that have been > participating in the development for this long period (and still only about > 3-5 persons doing all the stuff: documentation, bug fixing, patches, > administrating, etc). > > In one more year, alot of you will have abonded the API3 completely, leaving > only a few guys on board.. the API will work crossbrowser partially, and not > fully supporting the latest browsers (by that time something like versions > 110 of those browsers and DOM20)... Seen it happen already with this code, > don't want to redo it just to end up with the same thing. > > In the beginning we had clean code, it was backwards compatible and was nice > to look at, but didn't had the powerfull functionality it has now.. There's > not much wrong with the current API, the only thing is that no body ever > took the time to go thru the code and optimise it. I for one will keep > working on THIS version of the API and know it can be cleaned up, and make > it work on any other future browsers coming our way. > > let the flaming begin. > > Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...) > Software ontwikkelaar > Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v. > http://www.oibv.com > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
From: Doug M. <do...@cr...> - 2001-02-21 20:53:15
|
so let's say, DynAPI 2.01 ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jordi - IlMaestro - Ministral" <jmi...@or...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Freeing Memory > Amen. However Pascal I don't think anyone pretends to redo the API. We should > blame Raymond ( as usual :) ) because he introduced the 3 in the name and made > it all look scary. > > When we're saying DynAPI3 I understand we're meaning DynAPI2 with better and > cleaner code, not a new API. > > Pascal wrote: > > > Well to get this said in time: > > > > I think that any moves towards a DynAPI3 should be on a seperate sourceforge > > project (or atleast other location). > > > > I have absolutely no interest in doing everything all over again or even > > participating in a venture like that. > > > > The DynAPI2 has been in development for little more then a year now, and we > > "made" everyone drop the dynapi1 in favour of DynAPI2 saying "dynapi1 is > > discontinued, dynapi2 will support ie55 and ns6 and other new browsers, it's > > better more flexible and you should just use it" > > > > Now you guys are thinking about doing it all over again.. this means you'r > > saying to all the users (and there are ALOT) sorry people, now you'll have > > to use this unfinished-slightly-not-100%-working version of a crossbrowser > > library because we're going to redo everything. > > > > Most people here haven't been involved with the full developing of the > > DynAPI, I can think of only 3 persons at this moment that have been > > participating in the development for this long period (and still only about > > 3-5 persons doing all the stuff: documentation, bug fixing, patches, > > administrating, etc). > > > > In one more year, alot of you will have abonded the API3 completely, leaving > > only a few guys on board.. the API will work crossbrowser partially, and not > > fully supporting the latest browsers (by that time something like versions > > 110 of those browsers and DOM20)... Seen it happen already with this code, > > don't want to redo it just to end up with the same thing. > > > > In the beginning we had clean code, it was backwards compatible and was nice > > to look at, but didn't had the powerfull functionality it has now.. There's > > not much wrong with the current API, the only thing is that no body ever > > took the time to go thru the code and optimise it. I for one will keep > > working on THIS version of the API and know it can be cleaned up, and make > > it work on any other future browsers coming our way. > > > > let the flaming begin. > > > > Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...) > > Software ontwikkelaar > > Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v. > > http://www.oibv.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Free Edition Download at: http://www.grisoft.com/html/us_index.cfm Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.231 / Virus Database: 112 - Release Date: 2/12/01 |
From: .:: O. ::. <oc...@ho...> - 2001-02-21 09:52:34
|
A voice of reason ! There's no flames from this camp. >From: "Pascal" <pb...@oi...> >Reply-To: dyn...@li... >To: <dyn...@li...> >Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Freeing Memory >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:54:48 +0100 > >Well to get this said in time: > >I think that any moves towards a DynAPI3 should be on a seperate >sourceforge >project (or atleast other location). > >I have absolutely no interest in doing everything all over again or even >participating in a venture like that. > >The DynAPI2 has been in development for little more then a year now, and >we >"made" everyone drop the dynapi1 in favour of DynAPI2 saying "dynapi1 is >discontinued, dynapi2 will support ie55 and ns6 and other new browsers, >it's >better more flexible and you should just use it" > >Now you guys are thinking about doing it all over again.. this means you'r >saying to all the users (and there are ALOT) sorry people, now you'll have >to use this unfinished-slightly-not-100%-working version of a crossbrowser >library because we're going to redo everything. > >Most people here haven't been involved with the full developing of the >DynAPI, I can think of only 3 persons at this moment that have been >participating in the development for this long period (and still only about >3-5 persons doing all the stuff: documentation, bug fixing, patches, >administrating, etc). > >In one more year, alot of you will have abonded the API3 completely, >leaving >only a few guys on board.. the API will work crossbrowser partially, and >not >fully supporting the latest browsers (by that time something like versions >110 of those browsers and DOM20)... Seen it happen already with this code, >don't want to redo it just to end up with the same thing. > >In the beginning we had clean code, it was backwards compatible and was >nice >to look at, but didn't had the powerfull functionality it has now.. There's >not much wrong with the current API, the only thing is that no body ever >took the time to go thru the code and optimise it. I for one will keep >working on THIS version of the API and know it can be cleaned up, and make >it work on any other future browsers coming our way. > >let the flaming begin. > >Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...) >Software ontwikkelaar >Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v. >http://www.oibv.com > > >_______________________________________________ >Dynapi-Dev mailing list >Dyn...@li... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. |
From: Pascal <pb...@oi...> - 2001-02-21 11:03:22
|
Ok, it then seems I misunderstood the complete discussion.. but I don't think everyone was on the same thinking-plane as Robert is, and some other people (the few that actually reacted) might have thought the same way I have: the plan of creating a new API from the ground up. This is something I don't think has any potential what so ever (just restating my point here) for the reasons I posted in the other mail. I'm all for cleaning up the current code, but not for changing things around "hoping" it will end up faster and lighter (I strongly believe it won't) To reply to Raymond's disullisioned problem quote: "To be honest I was a little disillusioned with the overall response to what I was proposing. And I'm certainly not interested in expending a large amount of my time for nothing." That's just part of my problem as well.. people seem to like discussing things (I'm one of them) but almost nothing is being done! This is what I see as the biggest problem with the DynAPI2. I have now read numerous posts of people saying that they fixed bugs, created great add-ons.. great, BUT SHOW US. don't tell us you did it, and it works, and it's better..give it up! (read the LICENSE agreement). Everyone saying that the current API could be improved alot is correct, but not for the reasons they give, but for the fact that if everyone would start sharing there work more it would have grown faster. Ofcourse, Raymond, your ideas are great and planning things is fine (as long as we're planning the enhancement and continueation of THIS api).. but if planning is all that's being done by people, then I'd rather not participate...and I fear that that's the case (as usual) "<emotes> flips blow torch in the air and extends the hand towards the rest of you all." lets see who will reach towards it then, just don't get disillusioned again... Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...) Software ontwikkelaar Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v. http://www.oibv.com > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: dyn...@li... > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Jordi - > IlMaestro > - Ministral > Verzonden: woensdag 21 februari 2001 10:25 > Aan: dyn...@li... > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Freeing Memory > > > Amen. However Pascal I don't think anyone pretends to redo > the API. We should > blame Raymond ( as usual :) ) because he introduced the 3 in > the name and made > it all look scary. > > When we're saying DynAPI3 I understand we're meaning DynAPI2 > with better and > cleaner code, not a new API. |
From: Raymond S. <dst...@or...> - 2001-02-21 11:35:14
|
Well, I learned disillusionment from a master. I remember a certain disillusioned Pascal that went off to create Dynacore. Your still here. I'm not going anywhere. And a lot of the passion that drove you to leave and get it "done" proved right in the end. Everything is a journey. I just want to kick a rock and start a new path in motion. The bricks of this API are the building blocks and it's a bit premature to discuss architectual relevance at this point (this is a metaphor Richard). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pascal" <pb...@oi...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 3:04 AM Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Freeing Memory > Ok, it then seems I misunderstood the complete discussion.. but I don't > think everyone was on the same thinking-plane as Robert is, and some other > people (the few that actually reacted) might have thought the same way I > have: the plan of creating a new API from the ground up. > > This is something I don't think has any potential what so ever (just > restating my point here) for the reasons I posted in the other mail. > > I'm all for cleaning up the current code, but not for changing things around > "hoping" it will end up faster and lighter (I strongly believe it won't) > > To reply to Raymond's disullisioned problem quote: > > "To be honest I was a little disillusioned with the overall response to what > I was proposing. And I'm certainly not interested in expending a large > amount of my time for nothing." > > That's just part of my problem as well.. people seem to like discussing > things (I'm one of them) but almost nothing is being done! This is what I > see as the biggest problem with the DynAPI2. I have now read numerous posts > of people saying that they fixed bugs, created great add-ons.. great, BUT > SHOW US. don't tell us you did it, and it works, and it's better..give it > up! (read the LICENSE agreement). > > Everyone saying that the current API could be improved alot is correct, but > not for the reasons they give, but for the fact that if everyone would start > sharing there work more it would have grown faster. > > Ofcourse, Raymond, your ideas are great and planning things is fine (as long > as we're planning the enhancement and continueation of THIS api).. but if > planning is all that's being done by people, then I'd rather not > participate...and I fear that that's the case (as usual) > > > "<emotes> flips blow torch in the air and extends the hand towards the rest > of you all." > > lets see who will reach towards it then, just don't get disillusioned > again... > > > Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...) > Software ontwikkelaar > Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v. > http://www.oibv.com > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: dyn...@li... > > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Jordi - > > IlMaestro > > - Ministral > > Verzonden: woensdag 21 februari 2001 10:25 > > Aan: dyn...@li... > > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Freeing Memory > > > > > > Amen. However Pascal I don't think anyone pretends to redo > > the API. We should > > blame Raymond ( as usual :) ) because he introduced the 3 in > > the name and made > > it all look scary. > > > > When we're saying DynAPI3 I understand we're meaning DynAPI2 > > with better and > > cleaner code, not a new API. > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > |
From: Richard B. <ma...@ri...> - 2001-02-21 13:00:07
|
> Everything is a journey. I just want to kick a rock and start a new path in > motion. The bricks of this API are the building blocks and it's a bit > premature to discuss architectual relevance at this point (this is a > metaphor Richard). Yes, I thought it sounded a little over the top :o) R. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raymond Smith" <dst...@or...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Freeing Memory |
From: <la...@li...> - 2001-02-21 13:18:55
|
Hi, I am all with Pascal here. Redesigning DynAPI2 seems mad at this stage. The API is pretty good as it is. The only major problem at prevents it from beeing used at *every* page on the web that uses dhtml is the fact that it is still leaking a lot of memory. Though you might think that it is not your problem as API-developers to fix. It is all microsofts fault (everything is now-a-days). The memoryleak still is the only major thing that keeps this otherwise great project from beeing useful. I am going to devote some of my day tomorrow to reduce some of the problems with leaks that I have with a widget that I am developing. It has currently been cut from 1mb+ leaks to 400kb leaks pr. reload. My reduction was done soly by reducing the number of layers used at the page and replacing that with less dynamic tables and css styles. I have tested and found that a page with DynAPI and 1 layer eats 200kb pr. reload. So that must be the minimum I am heading for. Still too much though. I'd like some pointers to what else I could try to reduce the leak. And not the least what have been tried and found not to be working. /Lasse - And sure, I'll post the widget once it is done :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pascal" <pb...@oi...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 3:04 AM Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Freeing Memory > Ok, it then seems I misunderstood the complete discussion.. but I don't > think everyone was on the same thinking-plane as Robert is, and some other > people (the few that actually reacted) might have thought the same way I > have: the plan of creating a new API from the ground up. > > This is something I don't think has any potential what so ever (just > restating my point here) for the reasons I posted in the other mail. > > I'm all for cleaning up the current code, but not for changing things around > "hoping" it will end up faster and lighter (I strongly believe it won't) > > To reply to Raymond's disullisioned problem quote: > > "To be honest I was a little disillusioned with the overall response to what > I was proposing. And I'm certainly not interested in expending a large > amount of my time for nothing." > > That's just part of my problem as well.. people seem to like discussing > things (I'm one of them) but almost nothing is being done! This is what I > see as the biggest problem with the DynAPI2. I have now read numerous posts > of people saying that they fixed bugs, created great add-ons.. great, BUT > SHOW US. don't tell us you did it, and it works, and it's better..give it > up! (read the LICENSE agreement). > > Everyone saying that the current API could be improved alot is correct, but > not for the reasons they give, but for the fact that if everyone would start > sharing there work more it would have grown faster. > > Ofcourse, Raymond, your ideas are great and planning things is fine (as long > as we're planning the enhancement and continueation of THIS api).. but if > planning is all that's being done by people, then I'd rather not > participate...and I fear that that's the case (as usual) > > > "<emotes> flips blow torch in the air and extends the hand towards the rest > of you all." > > lets see who will reach towards it then, just don't get disillusioned > again... > > > Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...) > Software ontwikkelaar > Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v. > http://www.oibv.com > |
From: Doug M. <do...@cr...> - 2001-02-21 21:11:39
|
NOw this is what I mentioned earlier. If you go nuts with the api (tree with 600 layers, list with 35 layers..) You will get a huge memory leak. I think people need to learn moderation. For instance, while the menu on the toolabr looks like it's four layers, it's actually ONE layer with ONE event handler. I just get where in the layer the mouse is to determine which menu should be popped up. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lasse Lindgård" <la...@li...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 5:18 AM Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] RE: Freeing Memory > Hi, > > I am all with Pascal here. Redesigning DynAPI2 seems mad at this stage. The > API is pretty good as it is. > The only major problem at prevents it from beeing used at *every* page on > the web that uses dhtml is the fact that it is still leaking a lot of > memory. > > Though you might think that it is not your problem as API-developers to fix. > It is all microsofts fault (everything is now-a-days). > The memoryleak still is the only major thing that keeps this otherwise great > project from beeing useful. > > I am going to devote some of my day tomorrow to reduce some of the problems > with leaks that I have with a widget that I am developing. It has currently > been cut from 1mb+ leaks to 400kb leaks pr. reload. > > My reduction was done soly by reducing the number of layers used at the page > and replacing that with less dynamic tables and css styles. > > I have tested and found that a page with DynAPI and 1 layer eats 200kb pr. > reload. So that must be the minimum I am heading for. Still too much though. > > I'd like some pointers to what else I could try to reduce the leak. And not > the least what have been tried and found not to be working. > > /Lasse > > - And sure, I'll post the widget once it is done :) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pascal" <pb...@oi...> > To: <dyn...@li...> > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 3:04 AM > Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Freeing Memory > > > > Ok, it then seems I misunderstood the complete discussion.. but I don't > > think everyone was on the same thinking-plane as Robert is, and some other > > people (the few that actually reacted) might have thought the same way I > > have: the plan of creating a new API from the ground up. > > > > This is something I don't think has any potential what so ever (just > > restating my point here) for the reasons I posted in the other mail. > > > > I'm all for cleaning up the current code, but not for changing things > around > > "hoping" it will end up faster and lighter (I strongly believe it won't) > > > > To reply to Raymond's disullisioned problem quote: > > > > "To be honest I was a little disillusioned with the overall response to > what > > I was proposing. And I'm certainly not interested in expending a large > > amount of my time for nothing." > > > > That's just part of my problem as well.. people seem to like discussing > > things (I'm one of them) but almost nothing is being done! This is what I > > see as the biggest problem with the DynAPI2. I have now read numerous > posts > > of people saying that they fixed bugs, created great add-ons.. great, BUT > > SHOW US. don't tell us you did it, and it works, and it's better..give > it > > up! (read the LICENSE agreement). > > > > Everyone saying that the current API could be improved alot is correct, > but > > not for the reasons they give, but for the fact that if everyone would > start > > sharing there work more it would have grown faster. > > > > Ofcourse, Raymond, your ideas are great and planning things is fine (as > long > > as we're planning the enhancement and continueation of THIS api).. but if > > planning is all that's being done by people, then I'd rather not > > participate...and I fear that that's the case (as usual) > > > > > > "<emotes> flips blow torch in the air and extends the hand towards the > rest > > of you all." > > > > lets see who will reach towards it then, just don't get disillusioned > > again... > > > > > > Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...) > > Software ontwikkelaar > > Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v. > > http://www.oibv.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Free Edition Download at: http://www.grisoft.com/html/us_index.cfm Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.231 / Virus Database: 112 - Release Date: 2/12/01 |
From: Raymond S. <dst...@or...> - 2001-02-20 21:22:34
|
I was gonna say that, but I knew you would and my thread was to long already... ;O) From: "Pascal Bestebroer" <pa...@dy...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:11 PM Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Freeing Memory > ke.. some thoughts. > > Javascript is interpreted.. so all of your Pentium /cpu ops. might not be > of any concern. > We need to make sure the JS parser handles it the quickest.. this could pose > another set of rules then your cpu rules. > > Sadly we have no clue on how the JS parsers work, and what they like more, > so we should try these things first before using the compiled language like > optimisations. > > > > Pascal Bestebroer > pa...@dy... > http://www.dynamic-core.net |