dynapi-dev

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Pascal <pb...@oi...>]

me again :)

I don't think this test is really useable.
Your current Tcanvas code misses ALOT of things DynLayer takes care of.

DynLayer sets sizes, z-index,clipping,bgimages in initialisation (and also a
few other style properties.. note that setting a style property is what
slows everything down)  I once did some optimization tricks to the dynlayer,
by removing sizes/clipping etc.. this speeds up things BIG TIME, but also
brakes useability for a large amount of widgets, and is less flexible.

DynLayer has code included for fast child-creation.. even though there are
no child layers in your test, this code is still called (function calls).
This could be made faster in dynlayer, but for now is more readable for
developers.  Do another test with layers containing a large amount child
layers.. Dynlayer's precreation will probably be faster.


shreded enough? ;)

Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...)
Software ontwikkelaar
Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v.
http://www.oibv.com

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: dyn...@li...
> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Eytan
> Heidingsfeld
> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 13:19
> Aan: Dynapi-Dev
> Onderwerp: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only
> test I did was
> create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200
> ms faster and
> in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
>
> I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
>
> Included in the zip are:
> tcanvas.js
> browser.js
>
> they need to be included in the document(working on adding .include)
>
> 8an
>

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Eytan H. <ey...@tr...>]

Now the glueing together.
For that reason exactly(setstyle) I added right after in my code:
setHTML
setVisible
setBgColor
setSize
moveTo

Next test will be nested.

Thanx for the shred,
8an

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Pascal <pb...@oi...>]

I already did some of these split ups in dynacore.. and it works ok, but is
not such a big speed increase (maybe a small increase when creating many
layers at initialisation)

I split up things like sethtml, setx+sety, so you might want to look at that
before having to code it yourself :)

I want to introduce all those changes to DynAPI aswell, but I think we
should first make sure NS6 works correctl aswell (not sure how many problems
there still are though).

If you and Robert find it ok (main developers)  I will try to include these
optimisations, and also add the dyndocument idea (dynlayer+dyndocument both
inheriting from dyndocument)

cya,

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: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 14:21
> Aan: dyn...@li...
> Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> Speed optimization can always be introduced. In fact, the
> latest precreation
> code that caused some old bugs to reappear and some people to
> complain about the
> API going backwards was introduced in order to speed up layer
> creation,
> something that was not a problem until people started wanting
> hundreds, even
> thousands of layers onscreen.
>
> I've been tempted to suggest this many times but I didn't
> want to spawn another
> "code split-up" argument. Some critical methods like, say,
> moveTo or setSize
> might speed up by doing.:
>
> if(is.ns) DynLayer.prototype.moveTo = function A
> else DynLayer.prototype.moveTo = function B
>
> I'll try myself in see what happens
>
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > me again :)
> >
> > I don't think this test is really useable.
> > Your current Tcanvas code misses ALOT of things DynLayer
> takes care of.
> >
> > DynLayer sets sizes, z-index,clipping,bgimages in
> initialisation (and also a
> > few other style properties.. note that setting a style
> property is what
> > slows everything down)  I once did some optimization tricks
> to the dynlayer,
> > by removing sizes/clipping etc.. this speeds up things BIG
> TIME, but also
> > brakes useability for a large amount of widgets, and is
> less flexible.
> >
> > DynLayer has code included for fast child-creation.. even
> though there are
> > no child layers in your test, this code is still called
> (function calls).
> > This could be made faster in dynlayer, but for now is more
> readable for
> > developers.  Do another test with layers containing a large
> amount child
> > layers.. Dynlayer's precreation will probably be faster.
> >
> > shreded enough? ;)
> >
> > Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...)
> > Software ontwikkelaar
> > Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v.
> > http://www.oibv.com
> >
> > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > Van: dyn...@li...
> > > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Eytan
> > > Heidingsfeld
> > > Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 13:19
> > > Aan: Dynapi-Dev
> > > Onderwerp: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only
> > > test I did was
> > > create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200
> > > ms faster and
> > > in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
> > >
> > > I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
> > >
> > > Included in the zip are:
> > > tcanvas.js
> > > browser.js
> > >
> > > they need to be included in the document(working on
> adding .include)
> > >
> > > 8an
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Michael P. <mp...@ph...>]

do you mean dynlayer+dyndocument both inheriting from dynobject?

Pascal wrote:

> I already did some of these split ups in dynacore.. and it works ok, but is
> not such a big speed increase (maybe a small increase when creating many
> layers at initialisation)
>
> I split up things like sethtml, setx+sety, so you might want to look at that
> before having to code it yourself :)
>
> I want to introduce all those changes to DynAPI aswell, but I think we
> should first make sure NS6 works correctl aswell (not sure how many problems
> there still are though).
>
> If you and Robert find it ok (main developers)  I will try to include these
> optimisations, and also add the dyndocument idea (dynlayer+dyndocument both
> inheriting from dyndocument)
>
> cya,
>
> 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: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 14:21
> > Aan: dyn...@li...
> > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >
> >
> > Speed optimization can always be introduced. In fact, the
> > latest precreation
> > code that caused some old bugs to reappear and some people to
> > complain about the
> > API going backwards was introduced in order to speed up layer
> > creation,
> > something that was not a problem until people started wanting
> > hundreds, even
> > thousands of layers onscreen.
> >
> > I've been tempted to suggest this many times but I didn't
> > want to spawn another
> > "code split-up" argument. Some critical methods like, say,
> > moveTo or setSize
> > might speed up by doing.:
> >
> > if(is.ns) DynLayer.prototype.moveTo = function A
> > else DynLayer.prototype.moveTo = function B
> >
> > I'll try myself in see what happens
> >
> > Pascal wrote:
> >
> > > me again :)
> > >
> > > I don't think this test is really useable.
> > > Your current Tcanvas code misses ALOT of things DynLayer
> > takes care of.
> > >
> > > DynLayer sets sizes, z-index,clipping,bgimages in
> > initialisation (and also a
> > > few other style properties.. note that setting a style
> > property is what
> > > slows everything down)  I once did some optimization tricks
> > to the dynlayer,
> > > by removing sizes/clipping etc.. this speeds up things BIG
> > TIME, but also
> > > brakes useability for a large amount of widgets, and is
> > less flexible.
> > >
> > > DynLayer has code included for fast child-creation.. even
> > though there are
> > > no child layers in your test, this code is still called
> > (function calls).
> > > This could be made faster in dynlayer, but for now is more
> > readable for
> > > developers.  Do another test with layers containing a large
> > amount child
> > > layers.. Dynlayer's precreation will probably be faster.
> > >
> > > shreded enough? ;)
> > >
> > > Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...)
> > > Software ontwikkelaar
> > > Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v.
> > > http://www.oibv.com
> > >
> > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > > Van: dyn...@li...
> > > > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Eytan
> > > > Heidingsfeld
> > > > Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 13:19
> > > > Aan: Dynapi-Dev
> > > > Onderwerp: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only
> > > > test I did was
> > > > create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200
> > > > ms faster and
> > > > in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
> > > >
> > > > I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
> > > >
> > > > Included in the zip are:
> > > > tcanvas.js
> > > > browser.js
> > > >
> > > > they need to be included in the document(working on
> > adding .include)
> > > >
> > > > 8an
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev

--
Michael Pemberton
mp...@ph...
ICQ: 12107010

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Eytan H. <ey...@tr...>]

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about changing the way of creating
objects. Instead of using
a = new DynLayer()
aparent.addChild(a)
and in those lines of code the following happening
creation of element
assignElement
precreate stuff
...

just adding a create method and calling it.
I have just proven that it works a lot faster (in NS about a ninth in 100
layers).

8an

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[<la...@li...>]

More importantly than upfront performance:
Does it reduce the memory leak ?

If not then performance will be on a freight train to swap-land in no time
anyways.

My current DynAPI pages eat a meg or more pr. reload. It is not a big
problem at my 256mb machine.  But just the thoughts of my clients 32mb
machines makes me shiver.

Any news on the memoryleak front ?
Is anybody working on it at all or are everybody busy doing "cool" stuff
instead ?

For DynAPI ever to be useful. We really need to get that memory problem
fixed.

/Lasse


--__--__--

Message: 6
From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
To: "Dynapi-Dev" <dyn...@li...>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:18:56 +0200
Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
Reply-To: dyn...@li...

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C09823.65DE2AF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only test I did was
create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200 ms faster and
in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).

I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.

Included in the zip are:
tcanvas.js
browser.js

they need to be included in the document(working on adding .include)

8an

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Eytan H. <ey...@tr...>]

I'm working on memory leak as we speak. I told the list that I found a
method in which after a refresh all the memory gets reduced. I'll tell you
when I have finished with my memory tests.
8an

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Doug M. <do...@cr...>]

I'm not working on mem leak at the moment.
Nor am I working on 'cool' stuff.
I'm trying to pay the rent, and if I'm lucky, maybe even afford some
groceries.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lasse Lindgård" <la...@li...>
To: <dyn...@li...>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:59 AM
Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer


> More importantly than upfront performance:
> Does it reduce the memory leak ?
>
> If not then performance will be on a freight train to swap-land in no time
> anyways.
>
> My current DynAPI pages eat a meg or more pr. reload. It is not a big
> problem at my 256mb machine.  But just the thoughts of my clients 32mb
> machines makes me shiver.
>
> Any news on the memoryleak front ?
> Is anybody working on it at all or are everybody busy doing "cool" stuff
> instead ?
>
> For DynAPI ever to be useful. We really need to get that memory problem
> fixed.
>
> /Lasse
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
> To: "Dynapi-Dev" <dyn...@li...>
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:18:56 +0200
> Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> Reply-To: dyn...@li...
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C09823.65DE2AF0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only test I did
was
> create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200 ms faster and
> in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
>
> I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
>
> Included in the zip are:
> tcanvas.js
> browser.js
>
> they need to be included in the document(working on adding .include)
>
> 8an
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Free Edition
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

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Pascal <pb...@oi...>]

Yes, Dynlayer and dyndocument use the same base class to inherit from.
dynobject contains all parent-child relations (adding,removing,deleting,
etc)

Also events are extending the dynobject, so dynlayer and dyndocument also
share that same extension (no differences between the code).. should make
developing things easier (having one object that contains the code, others
simply use it)

it looks like its working great (the release has been out for a while now,
haven't heard of big problems or found myself.. all Dynapi examples work
correctly with dynacore)



Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...)
Software ontwikkelaar
Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v.
http://www.oibv.com

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: dyn...@li...
> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Michael
> Pemberton
> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 14:43
> Aan: dyn...@li...
> Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> do you mean dynlayer+dyndocument both inheriting from dynobject?
>
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > I already did some of these split ups in dynacore.. and it
> works ok, but is
> > not such a big speed increase (maybe a small increase when
> creating many
> > layers at initialisation)
> >
> > I split up things like sethtml, setx+sety, so you might
> want to look at that
> > before having to code it yourself :)
> >
> > I want to introduce all those changes to DynAPI aswell, but
> I think we
> > should first make sure NS6 works correctl aswell (not sure
> how many problems
> > there still are though).
> >
> > If you and Robert find it ok (main developers)  I will try
> to include these
> > optimisations, and also add the dyndocument idea
> (dynlayer+dyndocument both
> > inheriting from dyndocument)
> >
> > cya,
> >
> > 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: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 14:21
> > > Aan: dyn...@li...
> > > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > >
> > >
> > > Speed optimization can always be introduced. In fact, the
> > > latest precreation
> > > code that caused some old bugs to reappear and some people to
> > > complain about the
> > > API going backwards was introduced in order to speed up layer
> > > creation,
> > > something that was not a problem until people started wanting
> > > hundreds, even
> > > thousands of layers onscreen.
> > >
> > > I've been tempted to suggest this many times but I didn't
> > > want to spawn another
> > > "code split-up" argument. Some critical methods like, say,
> > > moveTo or setSize
> > > might speed up by doing.:
> > >
> > > if(is.ns) DynLayer.prototype.moveTo = function A
> > > else DynLayer.prototype.moveTo = function B
> > >
> > > I'll try myself in see what happens
> > >
> > > Pascal wrote:
> > >
> > > > me again :)
> > > >
> > > > I don't think this test is really useable.
> > > > Your current Tcanvas code misses ALOT of things DynLayer
> > > takes care of.
> > > >
> > > > DynLayer sets sizes, z-index,clipping,bgimages in
> > > initialisation (and also a
> > > > few other style properties.. note that setting a style
> > > property is what
> > > > slows everything down)  I once did some optimization tricks
> > > to the dynlayer,
> > > > by removing sizes/clipping etc.. this speeds up things BIG
> > > TIME, but also
> > > > brakes useability for a large amount of widgets, and is
> > > less flexible.
> > > >
> > > > DynLayer has code included for fast child-creation.. even
> > > though there are
> > > > no child layers in your test, this code is still called
> > > (function calls).
> > > > This could be made faster in dynlayer, but for now is more
> > > readable for
> > > > developers.  Do another test with layers containing a large
> > > amount child
> > > > layers.. Dynlayer's precreation will probably be faster.
> > > >
> > > > shreded enough? ;)
> > > >
> > > > Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...)
> > > > Software ontwikkelaar
> > > > Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v.
> > > > http://www.oibv.com
> > > >
> > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > > > Van: dyn...@li...
> > > > > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Eytan
> > > > > Heidingsfeld
> > > > > Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 13:19
> > > > > Aan: Dynapi-Dev
> > > > > Onderwerp: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only
> > > > > test I did was
> > > > > create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200
> > > > > ms faster and
> > > > > in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Included in the zip are:
> > > > > tcanvas.js
> > > > > browser.js
> > > > >
> > > > > they need to be included in the document(working on
> > > adding .include)
> > > > >
> > > > > 8an
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > Dyn...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>
> --
> Michael Pemberton
> mp...@ph...
> ICQ: 12107010
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Pascal B. <pa...@dy...>]

yes, WE need to get this thing fixed..



Pascal Bestebroer
pa...@dy...
http://www.dynamic-core.net

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: dyn...@li...
> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Lasse Lindgård
> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 15:00
> Aan: dyn...@li...
> Onderwerp: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> More importantly than upfront performance:
> Does it reduce the memory leak ?
>
> If not then performance will be on a freight train to swap-land in no time
> anyways.
>
> My current DynAPI pages eat a meg or more pr. reload. It is not a big
> problem at my 256mb machine.  But just the thoughts of my clients 32mb
> machines makes me shiver.
>
> Any news on the memoryleak front ?
> Is anybody working on it at all or are everybody busy doing "cool" stuff
> instead ?
>
> For DynAPI ever to be useful. We really need to get that memory problem
> fixed.
>
> /Lasse
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
> To: "Dynapi-Dev" <dyn...@li...>
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:18:56 +0200
> Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> Reply-To: dyn...@li...
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C09823.65DE2AF0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only test
> I did was
> create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200 ms faster and
> in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
>
> I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
>
> Included in the zip are:
> tcanvas.js
> browser.js
>
> they need to be included in the document(working on adding .include)
>
> 8an
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Michael E. <Mic...@il...>]

I agree... this is a huge problem. Pretty much makes the software =
unusable
unless you have a ton of ram.

I currently have a level-3 defect on the memory leak generated by =
DynAPI for
a software product that is supposed to be out the door in a week. We =
have
not successfully had any impact whatsoever on this issue to date.

Anyone had any luck with this? Anyone have any ideas?

Mike Ellis

-----Original Message-----
From: Lasse Lindg=E5rd [mailto:la...@li...]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 07:00
To: dyn...@li...
Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer


More importantly than upfront performance:
Does it reduce the memory leak ?

If not then performance will be on a freight train to swap-land in no =
time
anyways.

My current DynAPI pages eat a meg or more pr. reload. It is not a big
problem at my 256mb machine.  But just the thoughts of my clients 32mb
machines makes me shiver.

Any news on the memoryleak front ?
Is anybody working on it at all or are everybody busy doing "cool" =
stuff
instead ?

For DynAPI ever to be useful. We really need to get that memory problem
fixed.

/Lasse


-- __--__--=20

Message: 6
From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
To: "Dynapi-Dev" <dyn...@li...>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:18:56 +0200
Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
Reply-To: dyn...@li...

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=3D_NextPart_000_0002_01C09823.65DE2AF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only test I did =
was
create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200 ms faster =
and
in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).

I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.

Included in the zip are:
tcanvas.js
browser.js

they need to be included in the document(working on adding .include)

8an

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Pascal B. <pa...@dy...>]

to be even less helpful here, I truly believe it can't be fixed, and that
it's an browser issue..
I truly hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the javascript interpreters
should automatically unload any memory no matter what.
This is how all (good) environments work) they get space to work in, and
once it's done that single memory block is freed.

Maybe I'm wrong (and I truly hope so) but I won't be searching for a
solution on this.

Pascal Bestebroer
pa...@dy...
http://www.dynamic-core.net

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: dyn...@li...
> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Michael Ellis
> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 19:25
> Aan: 'dyn...@li...'
> Onderwerp: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> I agree... this is a huge problem. Pretty much makes the software unusable
> unless you have a ton of ram.
>
> I currently have a level-3 defect on the memory leak generated by
> DynAPI for
> a software product that is supposed to be out the door in a week. We have
> not successfully had any impact whatsoever on this issue to date.
>
> Anyone had any luck with this? Anyone have any ideas?
>
> Mike Ellis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lasse Lindgård [mailto:la...@li...]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 07:00
> To: dyn...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> More importantly than upfront performance:
> Does it reduce the memory leak ?
>
> If not then performance will be on a freight train to swap-land in no time
> anyways.
>
> My current DynAPI pages eat a meg or more pr. reload. It is not a big
> problem at my 256mb machine.  But just the thoughts of my clients 32mb
> machines makes me shiver.
>
> Any news on the memoryleak front ?
> Is anybody working on it at all or are everybody busy doing "cool" stuff
> instead ?
>
> For DynAPI ever to be useful. We really need to get that memory problem
> fixed.
>
> /Lasse
>
>
> -- __--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
> To: "Dynapi-Dev" <dyn...@li...>
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:18:56 +0200
> Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> Reply-To: dyn...@li...
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C09823.65DE2AF0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only test
> I did was
> create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200 ms faster and
> in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
>
> I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
>
> Included in the zip are:
> tcanvas.js
> browser.js
>
> they need to be included in the document(working on adding .include)
>
> 8an
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Pascal B. <pa...@dy...>]

Note that I'm only splitting browser specific code, not complete functions
into seperate files (something I'm strongly against)
You shouldn't split up source code that is created to make split-up-browsers
to work as one.. doesn't make sense, and will most likely cause problems
when supporting cross-browser code.

What other optimisations are you thinking about?   I've noticed alot of
email from people saying they have done this, or done that.. but they never
show any code, so please people.. if you did some optimising or other
ingenious code show us, and don't be so vague

Pascal Bestebroer
pa...@dy...
http://www.dynamic-core.net

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: dyn...@li...
> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Bart Bizon
> Verzonden: zaterdag 17 februari 2001 13:10
> Aan: dyn...@li...
> Onderwerp: SV: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> Yes... and now we are again getting into the discussion of a
> split browser API.
> What you are proposing is taking a step in that direction..
>  I would take it on step further... and split up the code in
> different files alltogether (to minimize downloaded code and add clarity)
> ... but let's not dwell upon that... ;)
> I have been developing my SuperClass for some time now... and
> recently I have been doing a LOT of optimizing...
> so I'm getting to be very profitient in this area. And there is
> room for tons of optimization in DynAPI.
> But your suggestion is a very good start.
>
> >this is not how it should be done. Alot of methods in DynAPI contain if
> >statements for ie/ns checking.. you can optimize this by removing the IF
> >statements from the runtime loop, simple example of setX/setY:
> >
> >if (is.ns) {
> > DynLayer.prototype._setX=function(){ this.css.left=this.x;
> >this.pageX=this.getPageX() }
> > DynLayer.prototype._setY=function(){ this.css.top=this.y;
> >this.pageY=this.getPageY() }
> >} else {
> > DynLayer.prototype._setX=function(){ this.css.pixelLeft=this.x;
> >this.pageX=this.getPageX() }
> > DynLayer.prototype._setY=function(){ this.css.pixelTop=this.y;
> >this.pageY=this.getPageY() }
> >}
> >
> >
> >Your still assigning methods to the prototype, but at parse time, not run
> >time.. removing the IF statements, and speeding the execution of the code
> >(not by much, but it is an increase in speed)
> >
> >This can be done for multiple methods (setHTML, moveTo, setSizez, etc)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Pascal Bestebroer
> >pa...@dy...
> >http://www.dynamic-core.net
> >
> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >> Van: dyn...@li...
> >> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Bart Bizon
> >> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 23:18
> >> Aan: dyn...@li...
> >> Onderwerp: SV: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >>
> >>
> >> true ... but by that definition you would expect windows programs
> >> to release memory by default... and the OS should handle it .. right?
> >> Which it doesn't.... it's not just DynAPI pages that swallow
> >> memory, ordinary pages do to...
> >> and so do many windows programs.
> >> (But... this is assuming that windows is actually a good OS...
> >> which it is... NOT)
> >> Taking this into account... you have to work with the conditions
> >> at hand...
> >>
> >> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> >> Från: Pascal Bestebroer <pa...@dy...>
> >> Till: dyn...@li...
> <dyn...@li...>
> >> Datum: den 16 februari 2001 20:15
> >> Ämne: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >>
> >>
> >> >to be even less helpful here, I truly believe it can't be
> fixed, and that
> >> >it's an browser issue..
> >> >I truly hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the javascript
> >> interpreters
> >> >should automatically unload any memory no matter what.
> >> >This is how all (good) environments work) they get space to
> work in, and
> >> >once it's done that single memory block is freed.
> >> >
> >> >Maybe I'm wrong (and I truly hope so) but I won't be searching for a
> >> >solution on this.
> >> >
> >> >Pascal Bestebroer
> >> >pa...@dy...
> >> >http://www.dynamic-core.net
> >> >
> >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >> >> Van: dyn...@li...
> >> >> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Michael Ellis
> >> >> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 19:25
> >> >> Aan: 'dyn...@li...'
> >> >> Onderwerp: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree... this is a huge problem. Pretty much makes the
> >> software unusable
> >> >> unless you have a ton of ram.
> >> >>
> >> >> I currently have a level-3 defect on the memory leak generated by
> >> >> DynAPI for
> >> >> a software product that is supposed to be out the door in a
> >> week. We have
> >> >> not successfully had any impact whatsoever on this issue to date.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyone had any luck with this? Anyone have any ideas?
> >> >>
> >> >> Mike Ellis
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Lasse Lindgård [mailto:la...@li...]
> >> >> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 07:00
> >> >> To: dyn...@li...
> >> >> Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> More importantly than upfront performance:
> >> >> Does it reduce the memory leak ?
> >> >>
> >> >> If not then performance will be on a freight train to
> >> swap-land in no time
> >> >> anyways.
> >> >>
> >> >> My current DynAPI pages eat a meg or more pr. reload. It is
> not a big
> >> >> problem at my 256mb machine.  But just the thoughts of my
> clients 32mb
> >> >> machines makes me shiver.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any news on the memoryleak front ?
> >> >> Is anybody working on it at all or are everybody busy doing
> >> "cool" stuff
> >> >> instead ?
> >> >>
> >> >> For DynAPI ever to be useful. We really need to get that
> memory problem
> >> >> fixed.
> >> >>
> >> >> /Lasse
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -- __--__--
> >> >>
> >> >> Message: 6
> >> >> From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
> >> >> To: "Dynapi-Dev" <dyn...@li...>
> >> >> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:18:56 +0200
> >> >> Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >> >> Reply-To: dyn...@li...
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >> >>
> >> >> ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C09823.65DE2AF0
> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain;
> >> >> charset="iso-8859-1"
> >> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only test
> >> >> I did was
> >> >> create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200
> >> ms faster and
> >> >> in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
> >> >>
> >> >> Included in the zip are:
> >> >> tcanvas.js
> >> >> browser.js
> >> >>
> >> >> they need to be included in the document(working on adding .include)
> >> >>
> >> >> 8an
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Doug M. <do...@cr...>]

Seriously!
Someone on this list said that they 'found a solution' to the mem-leak
problem.
But that they won't share without more testing.
DUDE! this is an opensource project.
The whole point of an Opensource project is that you get to have many minds
helping you at once..
If you have found a solution SHARE!!!!
Maybe someone else will even improve on it.
Hell, this isn't about "well, I did this"
It's about "WE DID THIS"

Shit.

Thanks for listening.
Doug


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pascal Bestebroer" <pa...@dy...>
To: <dyn...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 4:44 AM
Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer


> Note that I'm only splitting browser specific code, not complete functions
> into seperate files (something I'm strongly against)
> You shouldn't split up source code that is created to make
split-up-browsers
> to work as one.. doesn't make sense, and will most likely cause problems
> when supporting cross-browser code.
>
> What other optimisations are you thinking about?   I've noticed alot of
> email from people saying they have done this, or done that.. but they
never
> show any code, so please people.. if you did some optimising or other
> ingenious code show us, and don't be so vague
>
> Pascal Bestebroer
> pa...@dy...
> http://www.dynamic-core.net
>
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: dyn...@li...
> > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Bart Bizon
> > Verzonden: zaterdag 17 februari 2001 13:10
> > Aan: dyn...@li...
> > Onderwerp: SV: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >
> >
> > Yes... and now we are again getting into the discussion of a
> > split browser API.
> > What you are proposing is taking a step in that direction..
> >  I would take it on step further... and split up the code in
> > different files alltogether (to minimize downloaded code and add
clarity)
> > ... but let's not dwell upon that... ;)
> > I have been developing my SuperClass for some time now... and
> > recently I have been doing a LOT of optimizing...
> > so I'm getting to be very profitient in this area. And there is
> > room for tons of optimization in DynAPI.
> > But your suggestion is a very good start.
> >
> > >this is not how it should be done. Alot of methods in DynAPI contain if
> > >statements for ie/ns checking.. you can optimize this by removing the
IF
> > >statements from the runtime loop, simple example of setX/setY:
> > >
> > >if (is.ns) {
> > > DynLayer.prototype._setX=function(){ this.css.left=this.x;
> > >this.pageX=this.getPageX() }
> > > DynLayer.prototype._setY=function(){ this.css.top=this.y;
> > >this.pageY=this.getPageY() }
> > >} else {
> > > DynLayer.prototype._setX=function(){ this.css.pixelLeft=this.x;
> > >this.pageX=this.getPageX() }
> > > DynLayer.prototype._setY=function(){ this.css.pixelTop=this.y;
> > >this.pageY=this.getPageY() }
> > >}
> > >
> > >
> > >Your still assigning methods to the prototype, but at parse time, not
run
> > >time.. removing the IF statements, and speeding the execution of the
code
> > >(not by much, but it is an increase in speed)
> > >
> > >This can be done for multiple methods (setHTML, moveTo, setSizez, etc)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Pascal Bestebroer
> > >pa...@dy...
> > >http://www.dynamic-core.net
> > >
> > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > >> Van: dyn...@li...
> > >> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Bart Bizon
> > >> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 23:18
> > >> Aan: dyn...@li...
> > >> Onderwerp: SV: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> true ... but by that definition you would expect windows programs
> > >> to release memory by default... and the OS should handle it .. right?
> > >> Which it doesn't.... it's not just DynAPI pages that swallow
> > >> memory, ordinary pages do to...
> > >> and so do many windows programs.
> > >> (But... this is assuming that windows is actually a good OS...
> > >> which it is... NOT)
> > >> Taking this into account... you have to work with the conditions
> > >> at hand...
> > >>
> > >> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> > >> Från: Pascal Bestebroer <pa...@dy...>
> > >> Till: dyn...@li...
> > <dyn...@li...>
> > >> Datum: den 16 februari 2001 20:15
> > >> Ämne: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >to be even less helpful here, I truly believe it can't be
> > fixed, and that
> > >> >it's an browser issue..
> > >> >I truly hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the javascript
> > >> interpreters
> > >> >should automatically unload any memory no matter what.
> > >> >This is how all (good) environments work) they get space to
> > work in, and
> > >> >once it's done that single memory block is freed.
> > >> >
> > >> >Maybe I'm wrong (and I truly hope so) but I won't be searching for a
> > >> >solution on this.
> > >> >
> > >> >Pascal Bestebroer
> > >> >pa...@dy...
> > >> >http://www.dynamic-core.net
> > >> >
> > >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > >> >> Van: dyn...@li...
> > >> >> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Michael
Ellis
> > >> >> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 19:25
> > >> >> Aan: 'dyn...@li...'
> > >> >> Onderwerp: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I agree... this is a huge problem. Pretty much makes the
> > >> software unusable
> > >> >> unless you have a ton of ram.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I currently have a level-3 defect on the memory leak generated by
> > >> >> DynAPI for
> > >> >> a software product that is supposed to be out the door in a
> > >> week. We have
> > >> >> not successfully had any impact whatsoever on this issue to date.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Anyone had any luck with this? Anyone have any ideas?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Mike Ellis
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >> From: Lasse Lindgård [mailto:la...@li...]
> > >> >> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 07:00
> > >> >> To: dyn...@li...
> > >> >> Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> More importantly than upfront performance:
> > >> >> Does it reduce the memory leak ?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If not then performance will be on a freight train to
> > >> swap-land in no time
> > >> >> anyways.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> My current DynAPI pages eat a meg or more pr. reload. It is
> > not a big
> > >> >> problem at my 256mb machine.  But just the thoughts of my
> > clients 32mb
> > >> >> machines makes me shiver.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Any news on the memoryleak front ?
> > >> >> Is anybody working on it at all or are everybody busy doing
> > >> "cool" stuff
> > >> >> instead ?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> For DynAPI ever to be useful. We really need to get that
> > memory problem
> > >> >> fixed.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> /Lasse
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -- __--__--
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Message: 6
> > >> >> From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
> > >> >> To: "Dynapi-Dev" <dyn...@li...>
> > >> >> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:18:56 +0200
> > >> >> Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > >> >> Reply-To: dyn...@li...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C09823.65DE2AF0
> > >> >> Content-Type: text/plain;
> > >> >> charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only test
> > >> >> I did was
> > >> >> create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200
> > >> ms faster and
> > >> >> in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Included in the zip are:
> > >> >> tcanvas.js
> > >> >> browser.js
> > >> >>
> > >> >> they need to be included in the document(working on adding
.include)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 8an
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> >> 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
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
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

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Pascal B. <pa...@dy...>]

I still think this is not a fair test..

simple example: DynAPI is maintaining a children array...see what it does
there.

I find it very hard to believe that your tcanvas is faster then dynlayer,
because your using dynlayer's creation code.
Your just leaving out alot of code we've been putting in for the last couple
of months to make dynlayer easier and give if more functionality.

I'll be doing some optimising test for dynlayer today (I think the
removeFromArray()  part is a problem with the speed, and see if I can make
it faster.. but again your tcanvas has alot less functionality then the
dynlayer..

we could make a dynlayer-lite and it would probably match your speed (or be
faster, because there's still room for optimisation in your creation code by
not calling the sethtml function, but just incorporating that code into the
create)

I'll let you know

Pascal Bestebroer
pa...@dy...
http://www.dynamic-core.net

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: dyn...@li...
> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Eytan Heidingsfeld
> Verzonden: zaterdag 17 februari 2001 21:26
> Aan: dyn...@li...
> Onderwerp: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> Included in the zip yet again
> tcanvas.js
> and
> browser.js
>
> and the test for DynLayer and TCanvas with nesting and without
> called:
> stress.dynlayer.create nested wtime.htm
> stress.dynlayer.create wtime.htm
> stress.canvas.create nested wtime.htm
> stress.canvas.create wtime.htm
>
> 8an

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Eytan H. <ey...@tr...>]

You just don't get it.
It's not that I use different code and the version I tested with has a
children list. (uses my TList so didn't include it).
The reason it's faster is such. When browsers parse js code and create
objects they create actual objects in their application. That means that for
every dynlayer there is an object inside Netscape or IE with actual objects
in them. In your method of creation you:
Create new DynLayer()
Call add child to the parent
Parent does the following
static Create the virtual object
static Create the actual element
static Assign the element
This means that the browser has to
Get Parent object in browsers memory
Call addchild
Call static line and create js object
Call static line and create js element
Call staticassignment where you have to get obj1 and obj2 and assign
and more of this type of thing
It slows down the process by a whole lot
What my create does is:
Create new Canvas()
myCanvas.create does this:
Check who the parent is
if null create in the actual document
if Canvas create under it
No passing of object between methods, not assigning no static methods.

8an

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Richard B. <ma...@ri...>]

> You just don't get it.
Let's avoid this kind of disrespect where possible.

You've done some interesting work, and now that there's something tangible
to work with I spent some time testing it.
I can't comment on whether or not objects are being passed, or assigned
static or whatever, simply on test results.
I find the results show not necessarily how fast Canvas is, but how horribly
slow DynAPI has grown.
I did some extended testing, and put this online, so others can compare the
results for themselves.

I did the test without children, one building 1000 layers, one building 200
layers.
I applied these to:
* Canvas
* DynAPI 25/jan/01 release
* DynaCore 2001/01/13 release
* DynAPI Lite 29/aug/2000
* DynAPI Lite Compact code 29/aug/2000

My results where: (in ms. on p3 550 winMe IE5.5 128ram)
Canvas 1000            18.130
Canvas 200                1.320
DynAPI 1000           94.470
DynAPI 200                4390
DynaCore 1000        21.030
DynaCore 200            1.430
DynAPI Lite 1000       9.340
DynAPI Lite 200         1.200
DynAPI Comp.1000 11.590
DynAPI Comp. 200    1.100

The tests are online here:
http://www.dynapi.f2s.com/dynapi/tcanvas/

If anyone wants to add files or anything here's the FTP:
username: dynapi
password: dynapi

I think it's clear there is something seriously slowing down the DynAPI, if
DynaCore is so much faster with more or less the same functionality,
something's wrong.
Also I'm all for including the Lite files again, as their times are very
good.

Cheers,
Richard Bennett

ma...@ri...
www.richardinfo.com
(Everything running on, and ported to the 19/12/2000 snapshot of DynAPI2)
Find the DynAPI faq here:
http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=656&group_id=5757
Browse the mailinglist here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/index.php3?hunt=dynapi

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
To: <dyn...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer


> You just don't get it.
> It's not that I use different code and the version I tested with has a
> children list. (uses my TList so didn't include it).
> The reason it's faster is such. When browsers parse js code and create
> objects they create actual objects in their application. That means that
for
> every dynlayer there is an object inside Netscape or IE with actual
objects
> in them. In your method of creation you:
> Create new DynLayer()
> Call add child to the parent
> Parent does the following
> static Create the virtual object
> static Create the actual element
> static Assign the element
> This means that the browser has to
> Get Parent object in browsers memory
> Call addchild
> Call static line and create js object
> Call static line and create js element
> Call staticassignment where you have to get obj1 and obj2 and assign
> and more of this type of thing
> It slows down the process by a whole lot
> What my create does is:
> Create new Canvas()
> myCanvas.create does this:
> Check who the parent is
> if null create in the actual document
> if Canvas create under it
> No passing of object between methods, not assigning no static methods.
>
> 8an
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> ____________________________________________________________
> Get your free domain name and domain-based e-mail from
> Namezero.com. New!  Namezero Plus domains now available.
> Find out more at: http://www.namezero.com
>

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Eytan H. <ey...@tr...>]

I am sorry if I sounded disrespectful.
Just frustrated with my boss at work,
sorry pascal
8an

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Pascal B. <pa...@dy...>]

no prob.

Pascal Bestebroer
pa...@dy...
http://www.dynamic-core.net 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: dyn...@li...
> [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Eytan Heidingsfeld
> Verzonden: zondag 18 februari 2001 19:12
> Aan: dyn...@li...
> Onderwerp: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> 
> 
> I am sorry if I sounded disrespectful.
> Just frustrated with my boss at work,
> sorry pascal
> 8an
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> 

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Doug M. <do...@cr...>]

I've been saying for month now that the API is getting bloated..
We REALLY need to re-evaluate the current structure and code..
As I'm sure your getrting tired of hearing,
2 minutes is simple TOO long for a site to load.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Bennett" <ma...@ri...>
To: <dyn...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer


> > You just don't get it.
> Let's avoid this kind of disrespect where possible.
>
> You've done some interesting work, and now that there's something tangible
> to work with I spent some time testing it.
> I can't comment on whether or not objects are being passed, or assigned
> static or whatever, simply on test results.
> I find the results show not necessarily how fast Canvas is, but how
horribly
> slow DynAPI has grown.
> I did some extended testing, and put this online, so others can compare
the
> results for themselves.
>
> I did the test without children, one building 1000 layers, one building
200
> layers.
> I applied these to:
> * Canvas
> * DynAPI 25/jan/01 release
> * DynaCore 2001/01/13 release
> * DynAPI Lite 29/aug/2000
> * DynAPI Lite Compact code 29/aug/2000
>
> My results where: (in ms. on p3 550 winMe IE5.5 128ram)
> Canvas 1000            18.130
> Canvas 200                1.320
> DynAPI 1000           94.470
> DynAPI 200                4390
> DynaCore 1000        21.030
> DynaCore 200            1.430
> DynAPI Lite 1000       9.340
> DynAPI Lite 200         1.200
> DynAPI Comp.1000 11.590
> DynAPI Comp. 200    1.100
>
> The tests are online here:
> http://www.dynapi.f2s.com/dynapi/tcanvas/
>
> If anyone wants to add files or anything here's the FTP:
> username: dynapi
> password: dynapi
>
> I think it's clear there is something seriously slowing down the DynAPI,
if
> DynaCore is so much faster with more or less the same functionality,
> something's wrong.
> Also I'm all for including the Lite files again, as their times are very
> good.
>
> Cheers,
> Richard Bennett
>
> ma...@ri...
> www.richardinfo.com
> (Everything running on, and ported to the 19/12/2000 snapshot of DynAPI2)
> Find the DynAPI faq here:
> http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=656&group_id=5757
> Browse the mailinglist here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/index.php3?hunt=dynapi
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
> To: <dyn...@li...>
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> > You just don't get it.
> > It's not that I use different code and the version I tested with has a
> > children list. (uses my TList so didn't include it).
> > The reason it's faster is such. When browsers parse js code and create
> > objects they create actual objects in their application. That means that
> for
> > every dynlayer there is an object inside Netscape or IE with actual
> objects
> > in them. In your method of creation you:
> > Create new DynLayer()
> > Call add child to the parent
> > Parent does the following
> > static Create the virtual object
> > static Create the actual element
> > static Assign the element
> > This means that the browser has to
> > Get Parent object in browsers memory
> > Call addchild
> > Call static line and create js object
> > Call static line and create js element
> > Call staticassignment where you have to get obj1 and obj2 and assign
> > and more of this type of thing
> > It slows down the process by a whole lot
> > What my create does is:
> > Create new Canvas()
> > myCanvas.create does this:
> > Check who the parent is
> > if null create in the actual document
> > if Canvas create under it
> > No passing of object between methods, not assigning no static methods.
> >
> > 8an
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > Dyn...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > Get your free domain name and domain-based e-mail from
> > Namezero.com. New!  Namezero Plus domains now available.
> > Find out more at: http://www.namezero.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
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

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynLayer Bloat

[Raymond S. <dst...@or...>]

I did alot of research on dynamic compression.  About 90% of the installed
base of Browsers is HTTP 1.1 compliant at this time.  If you use Apache you
can integrate the RCI (Remote Communications Inc) dynamic compression
mod_gzip module (it's free).
http://www.remotecommunications.com/apache/mod_gzip/

Using this you can compress the whole bloated API into a 18K package if you
include EVERYTHING, smarter lads won't.  Size of API isn't my concern.
Optimization is because IE itself is "three-legged dog" slow building
layers.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Melvin" <do...@cr...>
To: <dyn...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer


> I've been saying for month now that the API is getting bloated..
> We REALLY need to re-evaluate the current structure and code..
> As I'm sure your getrting tired of hearing,
> 2 minutes is simple TOO long for a site to load.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Bennett" <ma...@ri...>
> To: <dyn...@li...>
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> > > You just don't get it.
> > Let's avoid this kind of disrespect where possible.
> >
> > You've done some interesting work, and now that there's something
tangible
> > to work with I spent some time testing it.
> > I can't comment on whether or not objects are being passed, or assigned
> > static or whatever, simply on test results.
> > I find the results show not necessarily how fast Canvas is, but how
> horribly
> > slow DynAPI has grown.
> > I did some extended testing, and put this online, so others can compare
> the
> > results for themselves.
> >
> > I did the test without children, one building 1000 layers, one building
> 200
> > layers.
> > I applied these to:
> > * Canvas
> > * DynAPI 25/jan/01 release
> > * DynaCore 2001/01/13 release
> > * DynAPI Lite 29/aug/2000
> > * DynAPI Lite Compact code 29/aug/2000
> >
> > My results where: (in ms. on p3 550 winMe IE5.5 128ram)
> > Canvas 1000            18.130
> > Canvas 200                1.320
> > DynAPI 1000           94.470
> > DynAPI 200                4390
> > DynaCore 1000        21.030
> > DynaCore 200            1.430
> > DynAPI Lite 1000       9.340
> > DynAPI Lite 200         1.200
> > DynAPI Comp.1000 11.590
> > DynAPI Comp. 200    1.100
> >
> > The tests are online here:
> > http://www.dynapi.f2s.com/dynapi/tcanvas/
> >
> > If anyone wants to add files or anything here's the FTP:
> > username: dynapi
> > password: dynapi
> >
> > I think it's clear there is something seriously slowing down the DynAPI,
> if
> > DynaCore is so much faster with more or less the same functionality,
> > something's wrong.
> > Also I'm all for including the Lite files again, as their times are very
> > good.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Richard Bennett
> >
> > ma...@ri...
> > www.richardinfo.com
> > (Everything running on, and ported to the 19/12/2000 snapshot of
DynAPI2)
> > Find the DynAPI faq here:
> > http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=656&group_id=5757
> > Browse the mailinglist here:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/index.php3?hunt=dynapi
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
> > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >
> >
> > > You just don't get it.
> > > It's not that I use different code and the version I tested with has a
> > > children list. (uses my TList so didn't include it).
> > > The reason it's faster is such. When browsers parse js code and create
> > > objects they create actual objects in their application. That means
that
> > for
> > > every dynlayer there is an object inside Netscape or IE with actual
> > objects
> > > in them. In your method of creation you:
> > > Create new DynLayer()
> > > Call add child to the parent
> > > Parent does the following
> > > static Create the virtual object
> > > static Create the actual element
> > > static Assign the element
> > > This means that the browser has to
> > > Get Parent object in browsers memory
> > > Call addchild
> > > Call static line and create js object
> > > Call static line and create js element
> > > Call staticassignment where you have to get obj1 and obj2 and assign
> > > and more of this type of thing
> > > It slows down the process by a whole lot
> > > What my create does is:
> > > Create new Canvas()
> > > myCanvas.create does this:
> > > Check who the parent is
> > > if null create in the actual document
> > > if Canvas create under it
> > > No passing of object between methods, not assigning no static methods.
> > >
> > > 8an
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > > Dyn...@li...
> > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > Get your free domain name and domain-based e-mail from
> > > Namezero.com. New!  Namezero Plus domains now available.
> > > Find out more at: http://www.namezero.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
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynLayer Bloat

[Doug M. <do...@cr...>]

My concern was never size.. but Optimization,
BUT a small part of that is size..
:-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Smith" <dst...@or...>
To: <dyn...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynLayer Bloat


> I did alot of research on dynamic compression.  About 90% of the installed
> base of Browsers is HTTP 1.1 compliant at this time.  If you use Apache
you
> can integrate the RCI (Remote Communications Inc) dynamic compression
> mod_gzip module (it's free).
> http://www.remotecommunications.com/apache/mod_gzip/
>
> Using this you can compress the whole bloated API into a 18K package if
you
> include EVERYTHING, smarter lads won't.  Size of API isn't my concern.
> Optimization is because IE itself is "three-legged dog" slow building
> layers.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Melvin" <do...@cr...>
> To: <dyn...@li...>
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 2:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>
>
> > I've been saying for month now that the API is getting bloated..
> > We REALLY need to re-evaluate the current structure and code..
> > As I'm sure your getrting tired of hearing,
> > 2 minutes is simple TOO long for a site to load.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Bennett" <ma...@ri...>
> > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >
> >
> > > > You just don't get it.
> > > Let's avoid this kind of disrespect where possible.
> > >
> > > You've done some interesting work, and now that there's something
> tangible
> > > to work with I spent some time testing it.
> > > I can't comment on whether or not objects are being passed, or
assigned
> > > static or whatever, simply on test results.
> > > I find the results show not necessarily how fast Canvas is, but how
> > horribly
> > > slow DynAPI has grown.
> > > I did some extended testing, and put this online, so others can
compare
> > the
> > > results for themselves.
> > >
> > > I did the test without children, one building 1000 layers, one
building
> > 200
> > > layers.
> > > I applied these to:
> > > * Canvas
> > > * DynAPI 25/jan/01 release
> > > * DynaCore 2001/01/13 release
> > > * DynAPI Lite 29/aug/2000
> > > * DynAPI Lite Compact code 29/aug/2000
> > >
> > > My results where: (in ms. on p3 550 winMe IE5.5 128ram)
> > > Canvas 1000            18.130
> > > Canvas 200                1.320
> > > DynAPI 1000           94.470
> > > DynAPI 200                4390
> > > DynaCore 1000        21.030
> > > DynaCore 200            1.430
> > > DynAPI Lite 1000       9.340
> > > DynAPI Lite 200         1.200
> > > DynAPI Comp.1000 11.590
> > > DynAPI Comp. 200    1.100
> > >
> > > The tests are online here:
> > > http://www.dynapi.f2s.com/dynapi/tcanvas/
> > >
> > > If anyone wants to add files or anything here's the FTP:
> > > username: dynapi
> > > password: dynapi
> > >
> > > I think it's clear there is something seriously slowing down the
DynAPI,
> > if
> > > DynaCore is so much faster with more or less the same functionality,
> > > something's wrong.
> > > Also I'm all for including the Lite files again, as their times are
very
> > > good.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Richard Bennett
> > >
> > > ma...@ri...
> > > www.richardinfo.com
> > > (Everything running on, and ported to the 19/12/2000 snapshot of
> DynAPI2)
> > > Find the DynAPI faq here:
> > > http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=656&group_id=5757
> > > Browse the mailinglist here:
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/index.php3?hunt=dynapi
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
> > > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:57 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > >
> > >
> > > > You just don't get it.
> > > > It's not that I use different code and the version I tested with has
a
> > > > children list. (uses my TList so didn't include it).
> > > > The reason it's faster is such. When browsers parse js code and
create
> > > > objects they create actual objects in their application. That means
> that
> > > for
> > > > every dynlayer there is an object inside Netscape or IE with actual
> > > objects
> > > > in them. In your method of creation you:
> > > > Create new DynLayer()
> > > > Call add child to the parent
> > > > Parent does the following
> > > > static Create the virtual object
> > > > static Create the actual element
> > > > static Assign the element
> > > > This means that the browser has to
> > > > Get Parent object in browsers memory
> > > > Call addchild
> > > > Call static line and create js object
> > > > Call static line and create js element
> > > > Call staticassignment where you have to get obj1 and obj2 and assign
> > > > and more of this type of thing
> > > > It slows down the process by a whole lot
> > > > What my create does is:
> > > > Create new Canvas()
> > > > myCanvas.create does this:
> > > > Check who the parent is
> > > > if null create in the actual document
> > > > if Canvas create under it
> > > > No passing of object between methods, not assigning no static
methods.
> > > >
> > > > 8an
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > > > Dyn...@li...
> > > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> > > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > > Get your free domain name and domain-based e-mail from
> > > > Namezero.com. New!  Namezero Plus domains now available.
> > > > Find out more at: http://www.namezero.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
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynLayer Bloat

[Raymond S. <dst...@or...>]

precreate for NS created a 10X speed increase, I don't think precreate for
IE has even been implemented yet.  Has anyone tested it?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Melvin" <do...@cr...>
To: <dyn...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynLayer Bloat


> My concern was never size.. but Optimization,
> BUT a small part of that is size..
> :-)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Raymond Smith" <dst...@or...>
> To: <dyn...@li...>
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 1:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynLayer Bloat
>
>
> > I did alot of research on dynamic compression.  About 90% of the
installed
> > base of Browsers is HTTP 1.1 compliant at this time.  If you use Apache
> you
> > can integrate the RCI (Remote Communications Inc) dynamic compression
> > mod_gzip module (it's free).
> > http://www.remotecommunications.com/apache/mod_gzip/
> >
> > Using this you can compress the whole bloated API into a 18K package if
> you
> > include EVERYTHING, smarter lads won't.  Size of API isn't my concern.
> > Optimization is because IE itself is "three-legged dog" slow building
> > layers.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Doug Melvin" <do...@cr...>
> > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 2:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >
> >
> > > I've been saying for month now that the API is getting bloated..
> > > We REALLY need to re-evaluate the current structure and code..
> > > As I'm sure your getrting tired of hearing,
> > > 2 minutes is simple TOO long for a site to load.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Bennett" <ma...@ri...>
> > > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:28 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > >
> > >
> > > > > You just don't get it.
> > > > Let's avoid this kind of disrespect where possible.
> > > >
> > > > You've done some interesting work, and now that there's something
> > tangible
> > > > to work with I spent some time testing it.
> > > > I can't comment on whether or not objects are being passed, or
> assigned
> > > > static or whatever, simply on test results.
> > > > I find the results show not necessarily how fast Canvas is, but how
> > > horribly
> > > > slow DynAPI has grown.
> > > > I did some extended testing, and put this online, so others can
> compare
> > > the
> > > > results for themselves.
> > > >
> > > > I did the test without children, one building 1000 layers, one
> building
> > > 200
> > > > layers.
> > > > I applied these to:
> > > > * Canvas
> > > > * DynAPI 25/jan/01 release
> > > > * DynaCore 2001/01/13 release
> > > > * DynAPI Lite 29/aug/2000
> > > > * DynAPI Lite Compact code 29/aug/2000
> > > >
> > > > My results where: (in ms. on p3 550 winMe IE5.5 128ram)
> > > > Canvas 1000            18.130
> > > > Canvas 200                1.320
> > > > DynAPI 1000           94.470
> > > > DynAPI 200                4390
> > > > DynaCore 1000        21.030
> > > > DynaCore 200            1.430
> > > > DynAPI Lite 1000       9.340
> > > > DynAPI Lite 200         1.200
> > > > DynAPI Comp.1000 11.590
> > > > DynAPI Comp. 200    1.100
> > > >
> > > > The tests are online here:
> > > > http://www.dynapi.f2s.com/dynapi/tcanvas/
> > > >
> > > > If anyone wants to add files or anything here's the FTP:
> > > > username: dynapi
> > > > password: dynapi
> > > >
> > > > I think it's clear there is something seriously slowing down the
> DynAPI,
> > > if
> > > > DynaCore is so much faster with more or less the same functionality,
> > > > something's wrong.
> > > > Also I'm all for including the Lite files again, as their times are
> very
> > > > good.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Richard Bennett
> > > >
> > > > ma...@ri...
> > > > www.richardinfo.com
> > > > (Everything running on, and ported to the 19/12/2000 snapshot of
> > DynAPI2)
> > > > Find the DynAPI faq here:
> > > >
http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=656&group_id=5757
> > > > Browse the mailinglist here:
> > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/index.php3?hunt=dynapi
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
> > > > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:57 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > You just don't get it.
> > > > > It's not that I use different code and the version I tested with
has
> a
> > > > > children list. (uses my TList so didn't include it).
> > > > > The reason it's faster is such. When browsers parse js code and
> create
> > > > > objects they create actual objects in their application. That
means
> > that
> > > > for
> > > > > every dynlayer there is an object inside Netscape or IE with
actual
> > > > objects
> > > > > in them. In your method of creation you:
> > > > > Create new DynLayer()
> > > > > Call add child to the parent
> > > > > Parent does the following
> > > > > static Create the virtual object
> > > > > static Create the actual element
> > > > > static Assign the element
> > > > > This means that the browser has to
> > > > > Get Parent object in browsers memory
> > > > > Call addchild
> > > > > Call static line and create js object
> > > > > Call static line and create js element
> > > > > Call staticassignment where you have to get obj1 and obj2 and
assign
> > > > > and more of this type of thing
> > > > > It slows down the process by a whole lot
> > > > > What my create does is:
> > > > > Create new Canvas()
> > > > > myCanvas.create does this:
> > > > > Check who the parent is
> > > > > if null create in the actual document
> > > > > if Canvas create under it
> > > > > No passing of object between methods, not assigning no static
> methods.
> > > > >
> > > > > 8an
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > > > > Dyn...@li...
> > > > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> > > > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > > > Get your free domain name and domain-based e-mail from
> > > > > Namezero.com. New!  Namezero Plus domains now available.
> > > > > Find out more at: http://www.namezero.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
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynLayer Bloat

[Doug M. <do...@cr...>]

my onprecreate event listener get's fired in IE, does that count?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Smith" <dst...@or...>
To: <dyn...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynLayer Bloat


> precreate for NS created a 10X speed increase, I don't think precreate for
> IE has even been implemented yet.  Has anyone tested it?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Melvin" <do...@cr...>
> To: <dyn...@li...>
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 5:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynLayer Bloat
>
>
> > My concern was never size.. but Optimization,
> > BUT a small part of that is size..
> > :-)
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Raymond Smith" <dst...@or...>
> > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 1:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynLayer Bloat
> >
> >
> > > I did alot of research on dynamic compression.  About 90% of the
> installed
> > > base of Browsers is HTTP 1.1 compliant at this time.  If you use
Apache
> > you
> > > can integrate the RCI (Remote Communications Inc) dynamic compression
> > > mod_gzip module (it's free).
> > > http://www.remotecommunications.com/apache/mod_gzip/
> > >
> > > Using this you can compress the whole bloated API into a 18K package
if
> > you
> > > include EVERYTHING, smarter lads won't.  Size of API isn't my concern.
> > > Optimization is because IE itself is "three-legged dog" slow building
> > > layers.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Doug Melvin" <do...@cr...>
> > > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 2:31 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > >
> > >
> > > > I've been saying for month now that the API is getting bloated..
> > > > We REALLY need to re-evaluate the current structure and code..
> > > > As I'm sure your getrting tired of hearing,
> > > > 2 minutes is simple TOO long for a site to load.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Richard Bennett" <ma...@ri...>
> > > > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:28 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > You just don't get it.
> > > > > Let's avoid this kind of disrespect where possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've done some interesting work, and now that there's something
> > > tangible
> > > > > to work with I spent some time testing it.
> > > > > I can't comment on whether or not objects are being passed, or
> > assigned
> > > > > static or whatever, simply on test results.
> > > > > I find the results show not necessarily how fast Canvas is, but
how
> > > > horribly
> > > > > slow DynAPI has grown.
> > > > > I did some extended testing, and put this online, so others can
> > compare
> > > > the
> > > > > results for themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did the test without children, one building 1000 layers, one
> > building
> > > > 200
> > > > > layers.
> > > > > I applied these to:
> > > > > * Canvas
> > > > > * DynAPI 25/jan/01 release
> > > > > * DynaCore 2001/01/13 release
> > > > > * DynAPI Lite 29/aug/2000
> > > > > * DynAPI Lite Compact code 29/aug/2000
> > > > >
> > > > > My results where: (in ms. on p3 550 winMe IE5.5 128ram)
> > > > > Canvas 1000            18.130
> > > > > Canvas 200                1.320
> > > > > DynAPI 1000           94.470
> > > > > DynAPI 200                4390
> > > > > DynaCore 1000        21.030
> > > > > DynaCore 200            1.430
> > > > > DynAPI Lite 1000       9.340
> > > > > DynAPI Lite 200         1.200
> > > > > DynAPI Comp.1000 11.590
> > > > > DynAPI Comp. 200    1.100
> > > > >
> > > > > The tests are online here:
> > > > > http://www.dynapi.f2s.com/dynapi/tcanvas/
> > > > >
> > > > > If anyone wants to add files or anything here's the FTP:
> > > > > username: dynapi
> > > > > password: dynapi
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it's clear there is something seriously slowing down the
> > DynAPI,
> > > > if
> > > > > DynaCore is so much faster with more or less the same
functionality,
> > > > > something's wrong.
> > > > > Also I'm all for including the Lite files again, as their times
are
> > very
> > > > > good.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Richard Bennett
> > > > >
> > > > > ma...@ri...
> > > > > www.richardinfo.com
> > > > > (Everything running on, and ported to the 19/12/2000 snapshot of
> > > DynAPI2)
> > > > > Find the DynAPI faq here:
> > > > >
> http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=656&group_id=5757
> > > > > Browse the mailinglist here:
> > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/index.php3?hunt=dynapi
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...>
> > > > > To: <dyn...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:57 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > You just don't get it.
> > > > > > It's not that I use different code and the version I tested with
> has
> > a
> > > > > > children list. (uses my TList so didn't include it).
> > > > > > The reason it's faster is such. When browsers parse js code and
> > create
> > > > > > objects they create actual objects in their application. That
> means
> > > that
> > > > > for
> > > > > > every dynlayer there is an object inside Netscape or IE with
> actual
> > > > > objects
> > > > > > in them. In your method of creation you:
> > > > > > Create new DynLayer()
> > > > > > Call add child to the parent
> > > > > > Parent does the following
> > > > > > static Create the virtual object
> > > > > > static Create the actual element
> > > > > > static Assign the element
> > > > > > This means that the browser has to
> > > > > > Get Parent object in browsers memory
> > > > > > Call addchild
> > > > > > Call static line and create js object
> > > > > > Call static line and create js element
> > > > > > Call staticassignment where you have to get obj1 and obj2 and
> assign
> > > > > > and more of this type of thing
> > > > > > It slows down the process by a whole lot
> > > > > > What my create does is:
> > > > > > Create new Canvas()
> > > > > > myCanvas.create does this:
> > > > > > Check who the parent is
> > > > > > if null create in the actual document
> > > > > > if Canvas create under it
> > > > > > No passing of object between methods, not assigning no static
> > methods.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 8an
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > > > > > Dyn...@li...
> > > > > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > > > > Get your free domain name and domain-based e-mail from
> > > > > > Namezero.com. New!  Namezero Plus domains now available.
> > > > > > Find out more at: http://www.namezero.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
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Michael P. <mp...@ph...>]

I've found the following is a better removeFromArray.  it doesn't require all
the parsing
    removeFromArray : function(array, index, id) {
        var which=(typeof(index)=="object")?index:array[index];
        if (id) delete array[which.id];
        else for (var i=0; i<array.length; i++) if (array[i] == which) {
            array.splice(i,1);
            break;
        };
    },
it uses the internal JS method of removing array elements.
I'm sorry I didn't think to post this earlier.

Pascal Bestebroer wrote:

> I still think this is not a fair test..
>
> simple example: DynAPI is maintaining a children array...see what it does
> there.
>
> I find it very hard to believe that your tcanvas is faster then dynlayer,
> because your using dynlayer's creation code.
> Your just leaving out alot of code we've been putting in for the last couple
> of months to make dynlayer easier and give if more functionality.
>
> I'll be doing some optimising test for dynlayer today (I think the
> removeFromArray()  part is a problem with the speed, and see if I can make
> it faster.. but again your tcanvas has alot less functionality then the
> dynlayer..
>
> we could make a dynlayer-lite and it would probably match your speed (or be
> faster, because there's still room for optimisation in your creation code by
> not calling the sethtml function, but just incorporating that code into the
> create)
>
> I'll let you know
>
> Pascal Bestebroer
> pa...@dy...
> http://www.dynamic-core.net
>
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: dyn...@li...
> > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Eytan Heidingsfeld
> > Verzonden: zaterdag 17 februari 2001 21:26
> > Aan: dyn...@li...
> > Onderwerp: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
> >
> >
> > Included in the zip yet again
> > tcanvas.js
> > and
> > browser.js
> >
> > and the test for DynLayer and TCanvas with nesting and without
> > called:
> > stress.dynlayer.create nested wtime.htm
> > stress.dynlayer.create wtime.htm
> > stress.canvas.create nested wtime.htm
> > stress.canvas.create wtime.htm
> >
> > 8an
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> Dyn...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev

--
Michael Pemberton
mp...@ph...
ICQ: 12107010