You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2009/01/14 18:02:25 UTC
Seam/JSF vs Wicket: performance comparison
Peter Thomas wrote a nice article comparing the performance of
Seam/JSF and Wicket.
You can vote for the article at dzone:
http://www.dzone.com/links/seamjsf_vs_wicket_performance_comparison.html
Or read the article directly:
http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seam-jsf-vs-wicket-performance-comparison/
Many thanks go to Peter for writing this article.
Martijn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Seam/JSF vs Wicket: performance comparison
Posted by Martin Voigt <ma...@artnology.com>.
We did a similar test, and the result where much the same: one use
case, two implementations (jsf/ seam vs wicket). Both apps where
running inside JBoss and used the same persistence/ service layer. We
only did performance tests (no memory analysis), first wicket was
faster by a margin of 7-10, after reconfiguring seam/ jsf it was by a
margin of 2-3.
After analyzing the behaviour with JProfiler we found the problem:
JBoss EL, the expression language (rather a specific implementation of
it) used in JSF pages. Most time was spent in some invokeMethod()
code.
This is a seam issue: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBSEAM-1977
which comes from seam using javassist extensivly. Yes, you can
workaround by using some idioms or tricks, but personally I don't like
technologies where dealing with core stuff requires workarounds.
regards,
Martin
2009/1/14 Nino Martinez <ni...@gmail.com>:
> Wild, I did'nt think there was that much of a difference between wicket and
> the seam/jsf stack..
>
> Again wicket stands out as the winner :)
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>>
>> Peter Thomas wrote a nice article comparing the performance of
>> Seam/JSF and Wicket.
>>
>> You can vote for the article at dzone:
>> http://www.dzone.com/links/seamjsf_vs_wicket_performance_comparison.html
>>
>> Or read the article directly:
>>
>> http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seam-jsf-vs-wicket-performance-comparison/
>>
>> Many thanks go to Peter for writing this article.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Seam/JSF vs Wicket: performance comparison
Posted by Nino Martinez <ni...@gmail.com>.
Wild, I did'nt think there was that much of a difference between wicket
and the seam/jsf stack..
Again wicket stands out as the winner :)
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Peter Thomas wrote a nice article comparing the performance of
> Seam/JSF and Wicket.
>
> You can vote for the article at dzone:
> http://www.dzone.com/links/seamjsf_vs_wicket_performance_comparison.html
>
> Or read the article directly:
> http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seam-jsf-vs-wicket-performance-comparison/
>
> Many thanks go to Peter for writing this article.
>
> Martijn
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org