RHQ UI Perf Test (updated)

Ian Springer ian.springer at redhat.com
Mon Apr 30 21:26:13 UTC 2012


Great.

Thanks.

On 04/30/2012 05:05 PM, mike thompson wrote:
> Original Java line #.
>
> Just the same as "Detailed" gwt style.
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Ian Springer wrote:
>
>> But, just to clarify, are the line #'s JavaScript line #'s, or are 
>> they the original Java line #'s?
>>
>> On 04/30/2012 04:46 PM, mike thompson wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/rhq-devel/attachments/20120430/889d6ed3/attachment.html>


More information about the rhq-devel mailing list