[Dynapi-Dev] RE: Freeing Memory

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

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
>