GEF scalability [message #212745] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 23:33  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: mspivak.outerbay.com
How well does GEF scale? We're evaluating using it for a project that
may have hundreds of nodes in the diagram. (Large database schemas for
example.) Has this been done and what are the results?
Thx,
Max
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: GEF scalability [message #213460 is a reply to message #213451] |
Thu, 06 April 2006 04:01  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: kvdijken.tiscali.nl
Yes, I have several layers, where each of them can have up to several
10.000's of figures. Within such a layer, these figures are sibblings
indeed.
Koen
"Randy Hudson" <none@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:e123vd$ecv$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> In your application, are all 10,000 objects siblings? In the example I
> was thinking of, there is lots of nesting, so the nesting helps with tree
> pruning.
>
> "Koen van Dijken" <kvdijken@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
> news:e0ldq8$can$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>I use graphical datasets with several 10.000's of objects. When the
>>'diagram' is zoomed out, and a lot of graphical objects are visible, I
>>found out that performance is only acceptable of you implement your own
>>UpdateManager. The default DeferredUpdateManager repaints too many
>>figures.
>>
>> Also see:
>>
>> - thread 'Injecting custom UpdateManagers' in this newsgroup
>> - https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=126797
>>
>> Koen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Randy Hudson" <none@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
>> news:e0ep6b$c4n$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>> Some clients are creating as many as 10,000 figures and editparts.
>>>
>>> "Max Spivak" <mspivak@outerbay.com> wrote in message
>>> news:e0d2n4$87f$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>>> How well does GEF scale? We're evaluating using it for a project that
>>>> may have hundreds of nodes in the diagram. (Large database schemas for
>>>> example.) Has this been done and what are the results?
>>>>
>>>> Thx,
>>>> Max
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03521 seconds