Talk:NetbinoxPerformance
From APIDesign
(Comment provided by Tjwatson - via ArticleComments extension) |
|||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
--Tom Watson 21:01, 2 April 2010 (CEST) | --Tom Watson 21:01, 2 April 2010 (CEST) | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thanks a lot for the advice, I'll give it a try tonight. | ||
+ | |||
+ | --[[User:JaroslavTulach|JaroslavTulach]] 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
== Tjwatson said ... == | == Tjwatson said ... == | ||
Line 38: | Line 43: | ||
Are they both running the same set of bundles (together with some parts of NetBeans)? But in the netbinox case you have additional extensions to Equinox that help startup time by doing additional caching? | Are they both running the same set of bundles (together with some parts of NetBeans)? But in the netbinox case you have additional extensions to Equinox that help startup time by doing additional caching? | ||
+ | |||
+ | *JT: Right, the same set of bundles. In case of [[Netbinox]] with our own implementation of <code>BundleFile</code> | ||
The way you stated "I am glad to report that recently we improved Netbinox so much that our testing application (together with some parts of NetBeans) starts faster than Equinox itself." it sounds as though your whole application starts faster than an empty Equinox framework. That is not what you meant, correct? | The way you stated "I am glad to report that recently we improved Netbinox so much that our testing application (together with some parts of NetBeans) starts faster than Equinox itself." it sounds as though your whole application starts faster than an empty Equinox framework. That is not what you meant, correct? | ||
+ | |||
+ | *JT: Fixed. Thanks. | ||
--[[User:Tjwatson|Tjwatson]] 21:12, 2 April 2010 (CEST) | --[[User:Tjwatson|Tjwatson]] 21:12, 2 April 2010 (CEST) | ||
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 17:50, 3 April 2010
Comments on NetbinoxPerformance <comments />
Tom Watson said ...
Thanks a lot for the advice, I'll give it a try tonight.
--JaroslavTulach 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Tjwatson said ...
Could you clarify what is being run in the performance numbers you gave for Equinox vs. Netbinox?
Are they both running the same set of bundles (together with some parts of NetBeans)? But in the netbinox case you have additional extensions to Equinox that help startup time by doing additional caching?
- JT: Right, the same set of bundles. In case of Netbinox with our own implementation of
BundleFile
The way you stated "I am glad to report that recently we improved Netbinox so much that our testing application (together with some parts of NetBeans) starts faster than Equinox itself." it sounds as though your whole application starts faster than an empty Equinox framework. That is not what you meant, correct?
- JT: Fixed. Thanks.
--Tjwatson 21:12, 2 April 2010 (CEST)
Both Equinox and Felix support what folks call "reference" installs. This is done with a "reference" protocol handler.
So if you had code like this:
Then the content of /mybundles/someBundle.jar is copied into the framework cache as you have observed. But you can simply add a "reference:" to the front of your file: URL to have both Equinox and Felix read and use the content of the bundle without copying it into their own cache.
On Equinox (and I think Felix) you can also use reference: URLs to install bundles with opaque location string:
Care must be used when using reference installs. You must treat the path to the bundle content as owned by the framework as long as that bundle is installed in the framework. You are basically extending the framework cache out to some other path on your system.
Hope that Helps.
--Tom Watson 21:01, 2 April 2010 (CEST)