Portlet performance

[John Singleton <jo...@looseend.org>]

I'm evaluating Tapestry, and facelets, for use in a Portlet based project. We
need to migrate an exsiting Servlet/JSP based application to Portlets.

Currently I'm leaning towards Tapestry, from a coding standpoint it seems much
cleaner to me. The only problem is the initial overhead when adding a portlet to
a page. I understand this is because creating the per Portlet instance of the
Hivemind registry takes some time. My simple test portlet written in facelets
adds to the page in about a second, but the tapestry version takes about 10. The
customer probably won't stand for this.

Is there anything I can do to reduce this initial hit? Is this something being
addressed in 4.1 ?

Thanks

John


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org

Re: Portlet performance

[Aj Gregory <aj...@u.washington.edu>]

Hi John, I faced the same issue and opted to create my own version of 
the TapestryApplicationPortlet class so instead of creating a registry 
per portlet instance it creates one per type of portlet (where I'm using 
portletConfig.getPortletName() to distinguish type) so all portlet 
instances of the same portlet type use the same cached registry...

-Aj

John Singleton wrote:
> I'm evaluating Tapestry, and facelets, for use in a Portlet based project. We
> need to migrate an exsiting Servlet/JSP based application to Portlets.
>
> Currently I'm leaning towards Tapestry, from a coding standpoint it seems much
> cleaner to me. The only problem is the initial overhead when adding a portlet to
> a page. I understand this is because creating the per Portlet instance of the
> Hivemind registry takes some time. My simple test portlet written in facelets
> adds to the page in about a second, but the tapestry version takes about 10. The
> customer probably won't stand for this.
>
> Is there anything I can do to reduce this initial hit? Is this something being
> addressed in 4.1 ?
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>   

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org

Re: Portlet performance

[John Singleton <jo...@looseend.org>]

Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> First I've heard of it. I didn't initially have plans on doing anything with
> it but I'd be happy to in order to save you from jsf. :)
> 
> Whatever "it" is probably won't happen in the initial alpha release as I
> have some other items taking higher priority, but if you start a jira issue
> with some clear parameters for me to test with we can probably figure
> something out.
> 
I've done a few more timings, and it seems like the Registry construction isn't
the culprit.

ApplicationPortlet.init takes about 2.5s (.6 of which is the constructRegistry
call). The initial render takes 4.5s . Will this initial hit be when it
constructs the State Object that I am injecting?

I'll create a Jira issue, but just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing something
silly first.

Thanks

John


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org

Re: Portlet performance

[Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>]

First I've heard of it. I didn't initially have plans on doing anything with
it but I'd be happy to in order to save you from jsf. :)

Whatever "it" is probably won't happen in the initial alpha release as I
have some other items taking higher priority, but if you start a jira issue
with some clear parameters for me to test with we can probably figure
something out.

On 5/26/06, John Singleton <jo...@looseend.org> wrote:
>
> I'm evaluating Tapestry, and facelets, for use in a Portlet based project.
> We
> need to migrate an exsiting Servlet/JSP based application to Portlets.
>
> Currently I'm leaning towards Tapestry, from a coding standpoint it seems
> much
> cleaner to me. The only problem is the initial overhead when adding a
> portlet to
> a page. I understand this is because creating the per Portlet instance of
> the
> Hivemind registry takes some time. My simple test portlet written in
> facelets
> adds to the page in about a second, but the tapestry version takes about
> 10. The
> customer probably won't stand for this.
>
> Is there anything I can do to reduce this initial hit? Is this something
> being
> addressed in 4.1 ?
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.