Hi Ravi, hi Chris,
>>#1
>>I think it should be possible to adapt the ATL transformation in the
converter
>>(converter/internal/resources/transformations/JWT60toJWT70.atl) so
that layoutdata is created for both views at the same >>time but
Florian has probably more knowledge in that matter. Maybe the method
described in #2 could help you here.
Of course, creating the layoutdata for all existing views is not an
issue. Currently the layout data is only generated once with the view
“Technical” assigned. If you have several views, then simply the same
rule in the ATL-transformation can be copied and the term “Technical”
could be replaced by “Business” or others (depending on the views that
you have). If you have some problems here, just let me know.
>>#4:
>>As far as I know there haven’t been any substantial changes to
aspects in 0.7 (apart from bugfixes of course ;) ). Also, apart >>from
removing view data (point, dimension, reference, referenceedge), the
meta model hasn’t changed.
Yes, there are several bug fixes concerning aspects which Marc and I
have been working on. If you experience some problems such as the ones
described below, I guess Marc is the best to answer:
>>I’ve noticed that in 0.7 I’m not being able to attach new aspects to
any action node by the right-click > New Child context menu option.
Existing aspects however are being displayed correctly. The Manage
Profiles tab info is identical between the two versions.
>>I’ve observed that in 0.7, the child descriptors passed to
ActionBarContributor.generateCreateChildActions() do not include
AspectCommandParameter(s) that get passed for every Aspect defined via
extensions in 0.6.
Best regards,
Florian
*Von:* RAVI K. THAPLIYAL [mailto:RAVI.THAPLIYAL@xxxxxxxxxx]
*Gesendet:* Freitag, 8. Januar 2010 07:00
*An:* Christian Saad
*Betreff:* RE: Regarding fix for excessive GDI object usage
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your reply.
Since, I didn’t hear from you for long I started porting my app to JWT
0.7 in parallel. Now, I’ve been able to get my App compile and start
without errors and currently I’m identify the code changes required to
work with 0.7 and its overall impact on testing. I just have some
concerns and would like to hear your thoughts on the following:
#1. Our customized New Workflow wizard creates a 0.6 version file
which when opened in the editor is automatically converted to 0.7. If
we stick to creating files in 0.6 and suppress the file format change
information dialog is there a way to have the same layout info for
both technical and business views. Currently, it would ask if the user
wants to import it from technical view which would confuse the users.
#2. If we would like to keep the layout algorithms out of the picture
and keep it as simple as – what you’ll draw is what you’ll get. Can we
auto sync the layout info between tech and biz views without any
prompts? Idea is to keep it exactly like 0.6 in spite of having a
separate _view file.
#3. Even if we stick to creating 0.6 workflow file (when a new
workflow is created and when an existing workflow is checked out from
db) the check in workflow op that saves it to db would now have to
parse 3 files. We can’t maintain multiple view layouts in db so would
really want to keep the layout info in sync between views without any
prompts. Please point towards any API that would help us do all this
behind the scenes.
#4. Unlike other integrators of JWT like AgilPro and Scarbo, our App
makes heavy use of Aspects. Do you foresee any major changes required
for them to work with 0.7? In addition to separating the meta model
out of the editor has it also been changed that may impact Aspects
that were developed on 0.6.
I personally feel that we should move to 0.7 rather than doing it
later and ending up doing maintenance for two architecturally very
different versions. So, I would really appreciate your thoughts on the
above concerns.
Regards,
Ravi
*From:* Christian Saad [mailto:christian.saad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:30 PM
*To:* RAVI K. THAPLIYAL
*Subject:* AW: Regarding fix for excessive GDI object usage
Hi Ravi,
sorry for the late answer, unfortunately I was not available during
the holidays :(
The fix for the GDI leak addressed two main issues: On the one hand
the fonts and colors which are created in the PreferenceWrappers but
these should be fixed once the patch for these has been included. To
make sure that the cached resources are released when the last editor
is closed you should also update the following method in the
GeneralHelper:
*public* *static* *void* deregisterEditor(WEEditor ed)
{
/editorinstances/.remove(ed);
// dispose _gid_ resources
*if* (/editorinstances/.size() == 0)
{
Plugin./getDefault/().getImageRegistry().dispose();
FontPreferenceWrapper./disposeFonts/();
ColorPreferenceWrapper./disposeColors/();
}
}
The other major leak was due to inconsistent use of the ImageFactory.
You could try to replace the ImageFactory with the new one but I’m not
sure if this will help a lot since many methods used to create their
own images instead of using the factory. It is very difficult to
provide a patch for this since it affects many files. A possible
approach would be to search for getImage() calls in the code and make
sure they are redirected to the factory but I guess this would also
require a certain amount of work.
I’m really sorry that I can’t provide you with a complete solution
here, but the major internal changes which happened during the
implementation of 0.7.0 make it almost impossible to extract a useful
patch which works with the previous version. If you still have the
time I would therefore suggest to nevertheless consider a move to
0.7.0 since from an external point of view, the compatibility with
0.6.0 shouldn’t be too difficult to achieve.
Regards,
Chris
*Von:* RAVI K. THAPLIYAL [mailto:RAVI.THAPLIYAL@xxxxxxxxxx]
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 24. Dezember 2009 07:45
*An:* Christian Saad
*Betreff:* RE: Regarding fix for excessive GDI object usage
Hi Chris,
I’ve verified that the problem really is due to the leaked GDI
resources. As you rightly said, once the app crosses 10,000 GDI
objects it simply closes itself. I’m sending you a sample .workflow
and as it uses aspects its .workflow_conf file too.
The file when opened uses around 1450 GDI objects of which only around
70 are disposed when the editor is closed. The number is too high when
compared to JWT 0.7 which opens and closes around 300 handles only for
the same file after conversion and creation of the required
.workflow_view file of course.
I’ve verified that I’m using the patched files that you shared with
me. I would appreciate if you could test the attached workflow at your
end and share your findings.
Regards,
Ravi
*From:* Christian Saad [mailto:christian.saad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 23, 2009 6:10 PM
*To:* RAVI K. THAPLIYAL
*Subject:* AW: Regarding fix for excessive GDI object usage
Hi Ravi,
I’m suprised that this didn’t fix the problem for you since the fonts
accounted for most (I guess >60%) of the lost GDI resources. Could you
take a look in the task manager to see if the behavior is really
caused by a too big number of those (the screen usually goes blank
once 10000 is reached).
Regards,
Chris
*Von:* RAVI K. THAPLIYAL [mailto:RAVI.THAPLIYAL@xxxxxxxxxx]
*Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 23. Dezember 2009 10:28
*An:* christian.saad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Betreff:* Regarding fix for excessive GDI object usage
Hi Chris,
I tried using the patched versions of font and color preference
wrappers but they haven’t helped me much. With the kind of complex
workflows that are being opened, my RCP app’s lifetime is 10 mins tops.
Due to release constraints, I’m unable to switch to JWT 0.7. We really
can’t afford to have another test cycle with the kind of timelines we
have right now. So, I would really appreciate if you could list down
all the files that have been patched in 0.6 and the ones that have
been newly introduced in 0.7 to fix this issue.
As I already have prior experience with image registries etc. I’m
trying to see if I can patch my copy of 0.6 by merging code from 0.7
if required. I know the meta model has been separated from the editor
and that might make this task near impossible but I need to have the
files involved to verify this and then convince my superiors about the
same.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Regards,
Ravi
MASTEK LTD.
Mastek is in NASSCOM's 'India Top 20' Software Service Exporters List.
In the US, we're called MAJESCOMASTEK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not
that of Mastek Limited, unless specifically indicated to that effect.
Mastek Limited does not accept any responsibility or liability for it.
This e-mail and attachments (if any) transmitted with it are
confidential and/or privileged and solely for the use of the intended
person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review,
re-transmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action
in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than
the intended recipient is prohibited. This e-mail and its attachments
have been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. It is the
responsibility of the recipient to run the virus check on e-mails and
attachments before opening them. If you have received this e-mail in
error, kindly delete this e-mail from desktop and server.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
jwt-dev mailing list
jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
