32??? There isnt 32 different browser engines is there :? My own GWT projects, (using 2.5.1) use 7 at most. (and even that should go down in newer versions as Opera phase's out Presto.)
It wasn't GWT permutations taking the bulk of the time anyway, mind you - it seemed to mostly be the testing and (strangely) expanding JAR files. That was just my perception though. Certainly before it got to "compile-gwt:" took at least 4 hours. Would the log help here? My machine is a 4200 dual core Amd. Not much ram (2GB), was running chrome at the same time, but not doing anything intensive. I wouldn't be surprised if my machine is to blame here, but I cant think why it would be this different. --- Anyway, dinner now, then back to poking at things. ~~~ Thomas & Bertines online review show: http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) On 4 December 2013 20:59, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > We have 32 GWT permutations the moment, we used to have only 4... Some last > changes caused this increase... We need to be more cautious about updating > GWT client code. > I tried > ant clean dist-server compile-gwt test > It took me about 16 minutes. If you tried the default target which also > includes running tests then it could take about 6 minutes more. > So max 21 minutes on 2-core laptop. This is for the full prod build, if you > run the server from compiled source with dev GWT setting(only 2 > permutations) then it takes only a few minutes, or even less. > > Basically running wave is simple like: > > git clone git://git.apache.org/wave.git wave > cd wave > cp server.config.example server.config > ant dist-server compile-gwt run-server > Open the browser at http://localhost:9898 > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > > > "BUILD SUCCESSFUL > > > Total time: 312 minutes 41 seconds" > > > > Err.. it takes ~5 minutes on my dev machine! Is this a single core vm, > > doing lots of swapping, and with shared io? > > > > > Suggestion; > > > Would it be possible to have a virtual machine with everything set up > > > already? or is there technical/license reasons for that to be > unsuitable? > > > > I suspect this would be difficult. (And you don't really want to be in a > > VM). > > > > > Query: > > > Can Wave be updated to JDK7? is there big issues holding it back ? Or > is > > > there more open alternatives we can use instead - one that doesn't > > require > > > handing over personal details to a company? > > > > (OpenJDK 1.6 works fine, so...) > > > > This is quite difficult to do for the codebase. You would also need to > > upgrade all the third-party components. > > > > Please continue to provide feedback. > > > > Thanks. > > Ali > > >
