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