Hi Jesse, 23Kb? The original 176Kb shrinked to 176Kb with the same features? I'm stunned! :-) That will sure speed thinhs up a bit!
Regards, On 8/13/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just as an update on this thread, it looks like they've been working on build size and I'm currently able to create a 23kb file for dojo..So, I hope that will speed things up a little bit. On 8/5/06, Beat Hoermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > You should find that no XmlHttpObject's will be created against your > will > > unless you specifically set a parameter or call a method that is > designed to > > do it. (whether directly or as a side effect). > > Good idea! > > > The framework does continue to include javascript in your pages, as it > has > > always done. > > Of course, I guess nobody wants to miss that! It is just a difference to > load > a few inline JS-snippets of 50 Bytes or a JS-file of 173 KByte. > > > The summary between that documented page, and another email written on > this > > list - is that your thoughts are valid/common, but until someone > presents me > > with a real "problem" that I can measure and test against I'm not going > to > > invest the time/effort it would require to write the API around unknown > > object environments. > > Do you mean the portlet thread? Here again: The guy doesn't need the 173 > KByte "dojo.js". He just turns it off (or later it won't be automatically > loaded anymore). > > I don't quite understand what you mean with "a real problem" and "unknown > object environments". I do not have a concrete setting. Intuitively the > new "EventListener" and the new "ResponseBuilder" fit. Eventually, I would > like to use them for simple XHR-communication (aka ajax) without being > forced > to load the dojo-infrastructure. I don't know if this can be accomplished > or > how Tapestry generally supports me doing XHR without writing dynamic > scripts > and without using dojo. Sure, you guys have already done a lot of > conceptional > work on this and it is not a problem for me to wait for a refreshed user > doc. > > My current point is: It is not clear to me why a thin web-app has to load > the > dojo-infrastructure if it doesn't need dojo. (I showed an example in the > response to Bernard.) > > > I would certainly be all for reducing the total compressed size of the > > initial dojo bootstrap file though. No argument here for that :) Some of > it > > would involve simply including less packages in the default build, some > of > > it involving other things I've been mulling over in my head for a while. > > Not of a concern to me: Dojo provides so many valuable things for a > web-app, > all rectifying the additional loading time. My concern: How can I rectify > a 10 > sec startup-time for a web-app that doesn't use dojo. > > Thank's for your answer! It is a pleasure for me to see how things evolve > around Tapestry and XHR! > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Jesse Kuhnert Tapestry/Dojo/(and a dash of TestNG), team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
-- Pedro Viegas
