Geek asks and answers

How much the size of compiled js is reduced in size using specific classes instead of interfaces

I read that for GWT, specifying methods to return a specific implementation, for example:

public ArrayList<String> getList();

instead of the usually preferred "abstract interface", for example:

public List<String> getList();

leads to the fact that GWT generates less compiled javascript file, since the client code (ie, js) does not serve all known implementation of the interface (in this example List, the client code must be able to handle the LinkedList, ArrayList, Vector, and so on), so it can optimize js without compiling unused implementations.

My close questions:

  • It's true? (the following questions suggest that this is true)
  • Is there an optimization for each class using interfaces, or for each application? i.e
  • Do I see an advantage just by rebuilding one class? or
  • I see only advantages when all client classes are reorganized not to use interfaces?
+5
source share
3 answers

I just made a test based on an example application created by webAppCreator , but I added 3 simple services that returned either List<String>or ArrayList<String>, depending on the build.

The results were that when using all services ArrayList<String> , about 5Kb of compiled javascript was saved compared to any combination of return types.

, ( ).

, ( ).

+2

, GWT RPC. , GWT RPC, (, GWT )

  • ? ( , )

, GWT , "", .

  • , , ?

GWT RPC .

  • , ?

, , , , .

, , " " , : -

<extend-configuration-property name="rpc.blacklist"
    value="-java.util.ArrayList" />
+6

GWT- . , . , . . question. , , . .

GWT RPC. .

0

More articles:


All Articles