You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by AlexSerov <Hy...@gmail.com> on 2011/04/07 05:31:53 UTC
Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry
Hi Ville !
9902468 wrote:
>
> Science favors measurable differences - if you make arguments please back
> those up with hard numbers.
You are absolutely right about numbers. Should I apologize for Tapestry site
that misled me a lot - I think I should not. After I received clarifications
from Igor and others I immediately concluded that there is no much reasons
for Tapestry to bee too slow. Nevertheless I did some measurements once I
got some time.
I have installed Tapestry, Jetty, OpenEJB and Jumpstart following the
instructions. Then I have installed jmeter. I set it for 30 threads 100
seconds for a warm-up and 500 requests from each thread. The request did hit
only the first page of Jumpstart - localhost:8080/jumpsatrt/ itself. The
numbers are: average response time 130 milliseconds, throughoutput -
130/second. Not bad at all. I ran jetty from eclipse as described in the
instruction.
To test HybridJava I ported same page into HybridJAva format and generated
war file which I installed under jetty and ran jetty from a command line.
HybridJava is only about twice faster.
--
View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4287677.html
Sent from the Tapestry - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry
Posted by AlexSerov <Hy...@gmail.com>.
This is about hitting the first page of jumpstart only, which may be
OK. I will be happy to use whatever some other .war you send me.
Alex
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo [via
Tapestry] <ml...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:38:31 -0300, AlexSerov
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I think that for Tapestry folks (unlike me) it would be very simple to
>> generate jumstart application in the form of a war file that works at
>> once when deployed on jetty that is running from a command line. I
>> will appreciate if someone sends me that war file for my perfomance
>> tests.
>
> JumpStart isn't suitable for that, as it's a cookbook, not an application.
>
> --
> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
> Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer,
> and instructor
> Owner, Ars Machina Tecnologia da Informação Ltda.
> http://www.arsmachina.com.br
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4290602.html
> To unsubscribe from Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry, click here.
--
View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4291176.html
Sent from the Tapestry - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry
Posted by "Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo" <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:38:31 -0300, AlexSerov
<Hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that for Tapestry folks (unlike me) it would be very simple to
> generate jumstart application in the form of a war file that works at
> once when deployed on jetty that is running from a command line. I
> will appreciate if someone sends me that war file for my perfomance
> tests.
JumpStart isn't suitable for that, as it's a cookbook, not an application.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer,
and instructor
Owner, Ars Machina Tecnologia da Informação Ltda.
http://www.arsmachina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry
Posted by AlexSerov <Hy...@gmail.com>.
I think that for Tapestry folks (unlike me) it would be very simple to
generate jumstart application in the form of a war file that works at
once when deployed on jetty that is running from a command line. I
will appreciate if someone sends me that war file for my perfomance
tests.
Alex
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:10 PM, hj <hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would do that myself, but did not find the way to start jumpstart in
> a normal way - using war file.I see that as a drawback of jumpstart,
> but if someone helps me a little bit with running jumpstart with jetty
> started in a command line I will appreciate that a lot.
>
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Joachim Van der Auwera (PROGS bvba)
> [via Tapestry] <ml...@n5.nabble.com>
> wrote:
>> On 04/07/2011 05:31 AM, AlexSerov wrote:
>>> Hi Ville !
>>>
>>>
>>> 9902468 wrote:
>>>> Science favors measurable differences - if you make arguments please back
>>>> those up with hard numbers.
>>> You are absolutely right about numbers. Should I apologize for Tapestry
>>> site
>>> that misled me a lot - I think I should not. After I received
>>> clarifications
>>> from Igor and others I immediately concluded that there is no much reasons
>>> for Tapestry to bee too slow. Nevertheless I did some measurements once I
>>> got some time.
>>>
>>> I have installed Tapestry, Jetty, OpenEJB and Jumpstart following the
>>> instructions. Then I have installed jmeter. I set it for 30 threads 100
>>> seconds for a warm-up and 500 requests from each thread. The request did
>>> hit
>>> only the first page of Jumpstart - localhost:8080/jumpsatrt/ itself. The
>>> numbers are: average response time 130 milliseconds, throughoutput -
>>> 130/second. Not bad at all. I ran jetty from eclipse as described in the
>>> instruction.
>>>
>>> To test HybridJava I ported same page into HybridJAva format and generated
>>> war file which I installed under jetty and ran jetty from a command line.
>>> HybridJava is only about twice faster.
>> For a fair comparison, you would need to run both applications under
>> jetty from the command line. Having eclipse running in the background
>> will only increase load on the machine and skew your numbers. IDE's
>> have many background jobs.
>>
>> Joachim
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>> below:
>> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4287897.html
>> To unsubscribe from Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry, click here.
>
--
View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4289937.html
Sent from the Tapestry - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry
Posted by AlexSerov <Hy...@gmail.com>.
A good advice, tank you! The ant build so far not quite successful
though. See the log attached please.
Alex
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Joachim Van der Auwera (PROGS bvba)
[via Tapestry] <ml...@n5.nabble.com>
wrote:
> On 04/08/2011 03:10 AM, AlexSerov wrote:
>> I would do that myself, but did not find the way to start jumpstart in
>> a normal way - using war file.I see that as a drawback of jumpstart,
>> but if someone helps me a little bit with running jumpstart with jetty
>> started in a command line I will appreciate that a lot.
> Have you tried
> ant package
> ?
>
>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Joachim Van der Auwera (PROGS bvba)
>> [via Tapestry]<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2011 05:31 AM, AlexSerov wrote:
>>>> Hi Ville !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 9902468 wrote:
>>>>> Science favors measurable differences - if you make arguments please
>>>>> back
>>>>> those up with hard numbers.
>>>> You are absolutely right about numbers. Should I apologize for Tapestry
>>>> site
>>>> that misled me a lot - I think I should not. After I received
>>>> clarifications
>>>> from Igor and others I immediately concluded that there is no much
>>>> reasons
>>>> for Tapestry to bee too slow. Nevertheless I did some measurements once
>>>> I
>>>> got some time.
>>>>
>>>> I have installed Tapestry, Jetty, OpenEJB and Jumpstart following the
>>>> instructions. Then I have installed jmeter. I set it for 30 threads 100
>>>> seconds for a warm-up and 500 requests from each thread. The request did
>>>> hit
>>>> only the first page of Jumpstart - localhost:8080/jumpsatrt/ itself. The
>>>> numbers are: average response time 130 milliseconds, throughoutput -
>>>> 130/second. Not bad at all. I ran jetty from eclipse as described in the
>>>> instruction.
>>>>
>>>> To test HybridJava I ported same page into HybridJAva format and
>>>> generated
>>>> war file which I installed under jetty and ran jetty from a command
>>>> line.
>>>> HybridJava is only about twice faster.
>>> For a fair comparison, you would need to run both applications under
>>> jetty from the command line. Having eclipse running in the background
>>> will only increase load on the machine and skew your numbers. IDE's
>>> have many background jobs.
>>>
>>> Joachim
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>>> below:
>>>
>>> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4287897.html
>>> To unsubscribe from Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry, click here.
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4289814.html
>> Sent from the Tapestry - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4290450.html
> To unsubscribe from Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry, click here.
--
View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4291170.html
Sent from the Tapestry - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry
Posted by Joachim Van der Auwera <jo...@progs.be>.
On 04/08/2011 03:10 AM, AlexSerov wrote:
> I would do that myself, but did not find the way to start jumpstart in
> a normal way - using war file.I see that as a drawback of jumpstart,
> but if someone helps me a little bit with running jumpstart with jetty
> started in a command line I will appreciate that a lot.
Have you tried
ant package
?
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Joachim Van der Auwera (PROGS bvba)
> [via Tapestry]<ml...@n5.nabble.com>
> wrote:
>> On 04/07/2011 05:31 AM, AlexSerov wrote:
>>> Hi Ville !
>>>
>>>
>>> 9902468 wrote:
>>>> Science favors measurable differences - if you make arguments please back
>>>> those up with hard numbers.
>>> You are absolutely right about numbers. Should I apologize for Tapestry
>>> site
>>> that misled me a lot - I think I should not. After I received
>>> clarifications
>>> from Igor and others I immediately concluded that there is no much reasons
>>> for Tapestry to bee too slow. Nevertheless I did some measurements once I
>>> got some time.
>>>
>>> I have installed Tapestry, Jetty, OpenEJB and Jumpstart following the
>>> instructions. Then I have installed jmeter. I set it for 30 threads 100
>>> seconds for a warm-up and 500 requests from each thread. The request did
>>> hit
>>> only the first page of Jumpstart - localhost:8080/jumpsatrt/ itself. The
>>> numbers are: average response time 130 milliseconds, throughoutput -
>>> 130/second. Not bad at all. I ran jetty from eclipse as described in the
>>> instruction.
>>>
>>> To test HybridJava I ported same page into HybridJAva format and generated
>>> war file which I installed under jetty and ran jetty from a command line.
>>> HybridJava is only about twice faster.
>> For a fair comparison, you would need to run both applications under
>> jetty from the command line. Having eclipse running in the background
>> will only increase load on the machine and skew your numbers. IDE's
>> have many background jobs.
>>
>> Joachim
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>> below:
>> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4287897.html
>> To unsubscribe from Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry, click here.
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4289814.html
> Sent from the Tapestry - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry
Posted by AlexSerov <Hy...@gmail.com>.
I would do that myself, but did not find the way to start jumpstart in
a normal way - using war file.I see that as a drawback of jumpstart,
but if someone helps me a little bit with running jumpstart with jetty
started in a command line I will appreciate that a lot.
Alex
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Joachim Van der Auwera (PROGS bvba)
[via Tapestry] <ml...@n5.nabble.com>
wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 05:31 AM, AlexSerov wrote:
>> Hi Ville !
>>
>>
>> 9902468 wrote:
>>> Science favors measurable differences - if you make arguments please back
>>> those up with hard numbers.
>> You are absolutely right about numbers. Should I apologize for Tapestry
>> site
>> that misled me a lot - I think I should not. After I received
>> clarifications
>> from Igor and others I immediately concluded that there is no much reasons
>> for Tapestry to bee too slow. Nevertheless I did some measurements once I
>> got some time.
>>
>> I have installed Tapestry, Jetty, OpenEJB and Jumpstart following the
>> instructions. Then I have installed jmeter. I set it for 30 threads 100
>> seconds for a warm-up and 500 requests from each thread. The request did
>> hit
>> only the first page of Jumpstart - localhost:8080/jumpsatrt/ itself. The
>> numbers are: average response time 130 milliseconds, throughoutput -
>> 130/second. Not bad at all. I ran jetty from eclipse as described in the
>> instruction.
>>
>> To test HybridJava I ported same page into HybridJAva format and generated
>> war file which I installed under jetty and ran jetty from a command line.
>> HybridJava is only about twice faster.
> For a fair comparison, you would need to run both applications under
> jetty from the command line. Having eclipse running in the background
> will only increase load on the machine and skew your numbers. IDE's
> have many background jobs.
>
> Joachim
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4287897.html
> To unsubscribe from Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry, click here.
--
View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Re-HybridJava-vs-Tapestry-tp3555989p4289814.html
Sent from the Tapestry - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: HybridJava vs. Tapestry
Posted by Joachim Van der Auwera <jo...@progs.be>.
On 04/07/2011 05:31 AM, AlexSerov wrote:
> Hi Ville !
>
>
> 9902468 wrote:
>> Science favors measurable differences - if you make arguments please back
>> those up with hard numbers.
> You are absolutely right about numbers. Should I apologize for Tapestry site
> that misled me a lot - I think I should not. After I received clarifications
> from Igor and others I immediately concluded that there is no much reasons
> for Tapestry to bee too slow. Nevertheless I did some measurements once I
> got some time.
>
> I have installed Tapestry, Jetty, OpenEJB and Jumpstart following the
> instructions. Then I have installed jmeter. I set it for 30 threads 100
> seconds for a warm-up and 500 requests from each thread. The request did hit
> only the first page of Jumpstart - localhost:8080/jumpsatrt/ itself. The
> numbers are: average response time 130 milliseconds, throughoutput -
> 130/second. Not bad at all. I ran jetty from eclipse as described in the
> instruction.
>
> To test HybridJava I ported same page into HybridJAva format and generated
> war file which I installed under jetty and ran jetty from a command line.
> HybridJava is only about twice faster.
For a fair comparison, you would need to run both applications under
jetty from the command line. Having eclipse running in the background
will only increase load on the machine and skew your numbers. IDE's
have many background jobs.
Joachim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org