You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to adffaces-user@incubator.apache.org by Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com> on 2006/08/19 18:13:22 UTC
Combining Trinidad and Tomahawk in single web app
To achieve decent performance with Tomahawk state saving has to be set to
"server" and serialization turned off.
Trinidad in contrast recommends to use state saving on "client". (due to its
token-based mechanism).
State saving is controlled by single parameter which is set for the whole
web app.
<context-param>
<param-name>javax.faces.STATE_SAVING_METHOD</param-name>
<param-value>client</param-value>
<!--param-value>server</param-value-->
</context-param>
How would it be possible to combine Trinidad and Tomahawk in a single web
app with this restriction?
Thanks,
--MG
Re: Combining Trinidad and Tomahawk in single web app
Posted by Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com>.
We tested it with myfaces-1.1.4 and tomahawk-1.1.4 (no facelets) on weblogic
with both JDK 1.5 and JRockIt using JProbe and also FacesTrace.
Surprizingly with state saving on "server" the bottleneck was within
ApplyRequest values and Validation stages which
took more time even than rendering. Application stage is not taken into
account but it was taking much shorter time in our
case due to hibernate and ehcache.
Are there any ways to speed up ApplyRequestValues and Validation?
Thanks,
--MG
On 8/19/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, ok. It sounded like you were just quoting the MyFaces wiki
> performance page, rather than stating your own observations for your
> own application.
>
> I'm using client-side state saving with huge forms, but my hardware is
> adequate for the task.
>
> On 8/19/06, Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I did my testing so this is not speculation and the difference is very
> > significant. On big forms and not very fast server
> > it is very apparent with magnitude of several times slower.
> >
> > On 8/19/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/19/06, Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > To achieve decent performance with Tomahawk state saving has to be
> set
> > > to
> > > > "server" and serialization turned off.
> > >
> > > Until you do your own testing, that's speculation. What's true is
> > > that server-side state saving is faster but consumes more memory.
> > > What's unknown is whether the difference is significant for your
> > > particular application.
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Combining Trinidad and Tomahawk in single web app
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Ah, ok. It sounded like you were just quoting the MyFaces wiki
performance page, rather than stating your own observations for your
own application.
I'm using client-side state saving with huge forms, but my hardware is
adequate for the task.
On 8/19/06, Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did my testing so this is not speculation and the difference is very
> significant. On big forms and not very fast server
> it is very apparent with magnitude of several times slower.
>
> On 8/19/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/19/06, Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > To achieve decent performance with Tomahawk state saving has to be set
> > to
> > > "server" and serialization turned off.
> >
> > Until you do your own testing, that's speculation. What's true is
> > that server-side state saving is faster but consumes more memory.
> > What's unknown is whether the difference is significant for your
> > particular application.
> >
>
>
Re: Combining Trinidad and Tomahawk in single web app
Posted by Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com>.
I did my testing so this is not speculation and the difference is very
significant. On big forms and not very fast server
it is very apparent with magnitude of several times slower.
On 8/19/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/19/06, Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To achieve decent performance with Tomahawk state saving has to be set
> to
> > "server" and serialization turned off.
>
> Until you do your own testing, that's speculation. What's true is
> that server-side state saving is faster but consumes more memory.
> What's unknown is whether the difference is significant for your
> particular application.
>
Re: Combining Trinidad and Tomahawk in single web app
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
On 8/19/06, Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To achieve decent performance with Tomahawk state saving has to be set to
> "server" and serialization turned off.
Until you do your own testing, that's speculation. What's true is
that server-side state saving is faster but consumes more memory.
What's unknown is whether the difference is significant for your
particular application.
unsubscribe
Posted by LAW CHOR HIONG <CH...@y3technologies.com>.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Winer [mailto:awiner@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:19 AM
To: adffaces-user@incubator.apache.org
Cc: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: Combining Trinidad and Tomahawk in single web app
I should point out that the MyFaces (not Tomahawk, strictly
speaking) state saving algorithm for server-side state saving
without serialization and the Trinidad token-based client-side
state saving mechanism are rather similar.
When you use Trinidad with MyFaces, because of how
things are set up, the only options are MyFaces server-side
and Trinidad client-side. Trinidad doesn't provide a
server-side version, and overrides the client-side version
entirely (RI or MyFaces).
So, I'd say it doesn't deeply matter - you'll get good
performance either way. There are some optimizations
in the Trinidad mechanism that are not found in MyFaces,
and one thing I'd like to look at is comparing the two
codebases and either picking one to move forward
with, or merging the two to get the best of both (if
each does have unique advantages).
-- Adam
On 8/19/06, Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To achieve decent performance with Tomahawk state saving has to be set
to
> "server" and serialization turned off.
> Trinidad in contrast recommends to use state saving on "client". (due
to its
> token-based mechanism).
> State saving is controlled by single parameter which is set for the
whole
> web app.
>
> <context-param>
> <param-name>javax.faces.STATE_SAVING_METHOD</param-name>
> <param-value>client</param-value>
> <!--param-value>server</param-value-->
> </context-param>
>
>
> How would it be possible to combine Trinidad and Tomahawk in a single
web
> app with this restriction?
>
> Thanks,
> --MG
>
>
Re: Combining Trinidad and Tomahawk in single web app
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
I should point out that the MyFaces (not Tomahawk, strictly
speaking) state saving algorithm for server-side state saving
without serialization and the Trinidad token-based client-side
state saving mechanism are rather similar.
When you use Trinidad with MyFaces, because of how
things are set up, the only options are MyFaces server-side
and Trinidad client-side. Trinidad doesn't provide a
server-side version, and overrides the client-side version
entirely (RI or MyFaces).
So, I'd say it doesn't deeply matter - you'll get good
performance either way. There are some optimizations
in the Trinidad mechanism that are not found in MyFaces,
and one thing I'd like to look at is comparing the two
codebases and either picking one to move forward
with, or merging the two to get the best of both (if
each does have unique advantages).
-- Adam
On 8/19/06, Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To achieve decent performance with Tomahawk state saving has to be set to
> "server" and serialization turned off.
> Trinidad in contrast recommends to use state saving on "client". (due to its
> token-based mechanism).
> State saving is controlled by single parameter which is set for the whole
> web app.
>
> <context-param>
> <param-name>javax.faces.STATE_SAVING_METHOD</param-name>
> <param-value>client</param-value>
> <!--param-value>server</param-value-->
> </context-param>
>
>
> How would it be possible to combine Trinidad and Tomahawk in a single web
> app with this restriction?
>
> Thanks,
> --MG
>
>
Re: Combining Trinidad and Tomahawk in single web app
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
I should point out that the MyFaces (not Tomahawk, strictly
speaking) state saving algorithm for server-side state saving
without serialization and the Trinidad token-based client-side
state saving mechanism are rather similar.
When you use Trinidad with MyFaces, because of how
things are set up, the only options are MyFaces server-side
and Trinidad client-side. Trinidad doesn't provide a
server-side version, and overrides the client-side version
entirely (RI or MyFaces).
So, I'd say it doesn't deeply matter - you'll get good
performance either way. There are some optimizations
in the Trinidad mechanism that are not found in MyFaces,
and one thing I'd like to look at is comparing the two
codebases and either picking one to move forward
with, or merging the two to get the best of both (if
each does have unique advantages).
-- Adam
On 8/19/06, Mikhail Grushinskiy <mg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To achieve decent performance with Tomahawk state saving has to be set to
> "server" and serialization turned off.
> Trinidad in contrast recommends to use state saving on "client". (due to its
> token-based mechanism).
> State saving is controlled by single parameter which is set for the whole
> web app.
>
> <context-param>
> <param-name>javax.faces.STATE_SAVING_METHOD</param-name>
> <param-value>client</param-value>
> <!--param-value>server</param-value-->
> </context-param>
>
>
> How would it be possible to combine Trinidad and Tomahawk in a single web
> app with this restriction?
>
> Thanks,
> --MG
>
>