Thanks for posting this.
Not sure if I read this correctly.
Assuming all other being equal (can't really be sure):
GWT: Loading of *.cache.js takes 433ms for 75.8KB - there is also app.nocache.js 95ms for 3.3KB
J2CL: Loading of app.js takes 490ms for 70.5KB
The difference in timing is of course a network artifact since j2cl has less code to transmit.
Does j2cl has something equivalent of *.nocache.js. How it is linked? Does it use an iframe as GWT or is directly loaded in the document window?
I could see a lot of GWT programs breaking if the link model changes...
Vassilis
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 6:01 PM foal <sspiridonov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm... Looks like GWT wins. Yet.--GWT:
J2CL
Stas
On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 9:42:04 PM UTC+1, Ahmad Bawaneh wrote:Hi
I am happy to announce that i was able to build and deploy one of my applications using both J2CL and gwt2 at the same time.you can browse both versions herefor those who wants to to dig in and build the app i have prepared a github repository, find it herehappy J2CLing.. :-)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Vassilis Virvilis
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment