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