-
1. Re: Size of HTML produced
jbalunas Mar 8, 2009 8:22 PM (in response to joblini)Hi Joblini,
I think an overall review of the markup and JS size is a good idea for the next major release of RichFaces. This would be RichFaces 4.0.
Could you create a jira with this information in it?
Thanks,
Jay -
2. Re: Size of HTML produced
joblini Mar 8, 2009 8:40 PM (in response to joblini)"jbalunas@redhat.com" wrote:
Hi Joblini,
I think an overall review of the markup and JS size is a good idea for the next major release of RichFaces. This would be RichFaces 4.0.
Could you create a jira with this information in it?
Thanks,
Jay
Thanks for the quick reply, I have opened https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/RF-6485 -
3. Re: Size of HTML produced
jbalunas Mar 8, 2009 9:31 PM (in response to joblini)Excellent thanks!
-
4. Re: Size of HTML produced
sergeysmirnov Mar 8, 2009 9:50 PM (in response to joblini)changing the components layout will brake immediately the backward compatibility with all applications that use RichFaces already.
Optimizing the rendering output is one of the target for RichFaces 4.0
The size of the component (like rich:dataTable from < table > to < /table> is not only result of the dataTable rendering by itself, but also the size of the components included into the table). The different between the h:dataTable and rich:dataTable are skinning css lasses only. However, if you add the Ajax behavior to columns, the size for both h:dataTable and rich:dataTable will be increased drastically.
The most common developers' mistake is defining the instance of rich:menu for each row of the table instead of sharing the single instance between the rows. -
5. Re: Size of HTML produced
joblini Mar 8, 2009 10:05 PM (in response to joblini)"SergeySmirnov" wrote:
The most common developers' mistake is defining the instance of rich:menu for each row of the table instead of sharing the single instance between the rows.
Sorry, just to be clear the rich:menu is not included in the table, it is just a regular menu at the top of the page. It does contribute 60K to the total size, though.
It would be great to be able to share a single instance of rich:combobox between the rows, since each instance is around 4K. AFAIK, this is not currently possible. -
6. Re: Size of HTML produced
luxspes Mar 26, 2009 8:46 AM (in response to joblini)Yes, where I work we have the same problems, it is becoming increasingly hard to compete with other teams doing their development with Seam Web Remoting (or DWR) + JScriptBasedWidgets, because they seem to need a lot less bandwith (no need to transmit the UI markup, they just transmit the data, and build the UI in the client)
-
7. Re: Size of HTML produced
jbalunas Mar 26, 2009 10:46 AM (in response to joblini)We will review what can be done for the 3.3.2 timeframe, but likely significant improvements on this will not be possible until RF 4.0 because of backwards compatibility concerns.
Please vote for this issue in Jira if you have not already.
Thanks,
Jay -
8. Re: Size of HTML produced
joblini Apr 8, 2009 10:25 PM (in response to joblini)Hi Jay,
Thanks for your support on this issue. Any improvements that could be included in 3.2.2 would be welcome!
Our client is raking us over the coals because of the size of the pages, and the resulting response times :-(
One thing that helped was enabling GZIP in Jboss/Tomcat.
Best regards,
Ingo -
9. Re: Size of HTML produced
joblini Apr 8, 2009 10:28 PM (in response to joblini)Sorry, meant to say 3.3.2, not 3.2.2
-
10. Re: Size of HTML produced
ilya_shaikovsky Apr 9, 2009 4:02 AM (in response to joblini)b.t.w. some important work on performance and memory was already done for 3.3.1 and currently available in BETAs. So you could freely update your RF version. It has the same environment dependencies as 3.2.2.
-
11. Re: Size of HTML produced
jpleed3 Apr 15, 2009 12:50 PM (in response to joblini)Perhaps adding a colgroup to the table would reduce the need to set classes on every single cell. Either that or some kind of tag attribute to render the table leaner.
For a 50x20 table, just removing 'class="dr-table-cell rich-table-cell " ' would save 38K from the page size. -
12. Re: Size of HTML produced
joblini Apr 15, 2009 11:11 PM (in response to joblini)"jpleed3" wrote:
For a 50x20 table, just removing 'class="dr-table-cell rich-table-cell " ' would save 38K from the page size.
Yes, wouldn't it be sufficient to define a single class at the table level?<table class="rich-table">
CSS could then use the selector:table.rich-table td { }