jsr wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I’ve been reading about the performance increase with the latest builds and
> Dojo .9 and was excited to see what it could do for my fairly large
> application, so I decided it was time to test a NB6 daily build again. I’m
> sad to say that using 200710220000, I’ve found the runtime performance to
> actually be worse then with 5.5.1. How can this be?
>
Many Woodstock components are now based on Dojo .9 and JavaScript.
Although outputting raw HTML may be a bit quicker, we didn't have good
support for client-side updating. We also didn't support Ajax, either.
> For most pages, performance appears to be about the same. I did notice that
> instead of the page showing up in the browser fully rendered (as it did with
> 5.5.1), it now seems to partially show up, and then hangs the browser for
> half a second to a second before it finishes rendering. I assume this is the
> JavaScript being slow with rendering. Although this is annoying, it isn’t
> that bad since it is only for a second or so.
>
What you're seeing is the raw HTML displaying first, the rest is
rendered during the window.onLoad event. (This is a convention Dojo .9
has forced on us.) Regardless if the window.onLoad event is used or not,
it actually takes the same amount of time finish loading the page
completely.
> The real slowness seems to come when trying to display tables, particularly
> large ones. I have a table with about 800 rows, set to be paged at 200 rows
> per a page. This table has 5 columns with 1 hyperlink and 4 static text
> components. When you view the page, it initially displays part of the page
> (like with all pages), and then hangs the browser for around 10 seconds
> while it finishes rendering. The size of the page that was downloaded is
> 368KB. With 5.5.1, it takes around 1.5 seconds to fully render the page and
> the page size is only 170KB. If I hit the button to display the whole table
> on one page, it hangs the browser for about 90 seconds with the new
> woodstock components. With 5.5.1, it takes around 3 seconds to display the
> page.
>
I have not seen a performance issue with the table, but I'm not
attempting to display 800 rows, either. We'll have to test this.
> I’ve been very anxious for 6.0 to come out but with runtime performance
> being worse then 5.5.1 and a lot of CSS that was previously supported not
> working on 6.0, it is going to be very difficult to justify the upgrade.
>
HTML may be output differently for some widgets. What CSS is not
supported (e.g., are Woodstock selectors broken)?
Thanks,
Dan