[Seaside] Re: Re: i10n or speed?
Klaus D. Witzel
klaus.witzel at cobss.com
Mon Mar 19 16:33:01 UTC 2007
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:17:56 +0100, Philippe Marschall wrote:
> 2007/3/19, Klaus D. Witzel <klaus.witzel at cobss.com>:
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:58:11 +0100, Philippe Marschall wrote:
>> > Hi
>> > Have you ever tried a counter in a recent version of Seaside? I don't
>> > know about you but for such a simple application it is way too slow
>> > for my taste. As part of the 2.8 cycle we look into ways of making
>> > Seaside faster.
>> > Attached you will find several traces for the counter application.
>> > As you can see, an awful lot of time is spent to convert URLs to
>> > String. Of that most time is spent in#encodeForHTTP.
>> I know how to speed up #isSafeForHTTP :)
> At the string level I now use #isByteString + #indexOfAnyOf: with a
> character set of unsafe latin1 characters.
> At the character level I use
> (aCharacter charCode < 128 and: [ (unsafeCharacterSet includes: each)
> not ])
> works pretty dandy so far.
Sure. Must be so, for #isByteString cases :)
>> Could you make me the traces
>> again, with the following "correction": there seems to be an #ensure:
>> the top of tree) which seems to obscure,
> That's from the MessageTally.
Never seen that; do you see it in (MessageTally spyOn: [12345 timesRepeat:
[Processor nextReadyProcess]]) ?
> What excatly do you want to have profiled?
The levels underneath #encodeForHTTP and #isSafeForHTTP, for all the cases
for which #isByteString returnes false. Exactly enough?
>> what details are touched by
>> #encodeForHTTP and #isSafeForHTTP.
> URL generation for anchors and stuff.
>> > So what do you find more important, that Seaside is fast or that is
>> > supports non-ascii urls?
>> > Cheers
>> > Philippe
>> > P.S.: the original mail had several traces more but was apparently too
>> > big, maybe it will arrive later.
>> Seaside mailing list
>> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the seaside