RHQ UI Perf Test (updated)
mike thompson
mithomps at redhat.com
Mon Apr 30 20:46:53 UTC 2012
No, all options but the pure OBF give us stack trace line numbers.
So OBF is not an option for us right now, but the other 3 options are all valid. The "pretty" gwt compile option gives us stack traces with line numbers and the best size/performance characteristics with the exception of pure OBF (that doesn't have the line numbers in stack trace).
My vote is for the "pretty" option.
On Apr 30, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Ian Springer wrote:
> So the only thing that would give us the Java line numbers in stack traces is the OBF w/ emulated stack trace option, correct?
>
> On 04/30/2012 04:27 PM, mike thompson wrote:
>>
>> The document is updated with initial load times and the "pretty" gwt compile option.
>>
>> This "pretty" option seems like the best price/performance that enables stack traces. It is faster than Detailed and OBF w/ Emulated stack trace but slower than OBF. It is the fastest/smallest option with Stack Traces
>>
>> Link to report:
>> http://www.evernote.com/shard/s8/sh/b273049d-4387-41f0-a65a-75ff57e230a2/b6732b0c289f206ff7faea2a142ed04b
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rhq-devel mailing list
>> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
>> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
>
>
> --
> Ian Springer
> Principal Software Developer
> JBoss Operations Network
> Red Hat
> ian.springer at redhat.com
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/rhq-devel/attachments/20120430/191e0b7f/attachment.html>
More information about the rhq-devel
mailing list