I think Mike's example for #248 says
that the overloading may cause a larger CSS file ...
Rich Thompson
Andre Kramer <>
03/26/2003 11:14 AM
To:
cc:
Subject:
RE: [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia] [change request
#249] Class name length im pact on performance
May be we can kill two birds with
one stone (#249 and #248) by dropping the "section" from portlet-section-xyz
[one shorter but overloaded class name that developer applies to possibly
two or more contexts].
regards,
Andre
-----Original Message-----
From: Alejandro Abdelnur [mailto:]
Sent: 26 March 2003 15:47
To: Rich Thompson
Cc:
Subject: Re: [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia] [change request #249] Class name length
impact on performance
I agree with Rich on the clarity thing. However, I wouldn't
have a problem with shortening the prefix from 'portlet-' to 'p-' and keeping
the rest of the class name the same.
Mike, it's kind of funny that the document size appears to be an issue
when you are considering encoding the navigational state of all the portlets
in the page into every URL in the page. Just kidding ;)
Alejandro
Rich Thompson wrote:
To keep this reasonably in perspective, files with CSS definitions make
wonderful items for caching and so the download time impact is lessened
significantly. Also, the length of the class names is a minor part of the
length of the CSS file.
The class names in the content is unlikely to add over a k in overall file
size and therefore be a minor portion of the performance question.
Net: Class names should be as short as is reasonable as they do impact
End-User performance, but clarity of what the class is for should not be
sacrificed in order to shorten the name.
Rich Thompson
Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
03/26/2003 10:09 AM
To:
cc:
Subject: [wsrp]
[wsrp-wsia] [change request #249] Class name length impact on performance
This came from an internal review by our "performance police":
Document: Spec 0.92
Section: 10.5 CSS Style defintions
Page/Line: 72/15
Requested by: Michael Freedman
Old Text:
portlet-*
New Text:
shorter class names
Reasoning:
Please strongly consider using *much* shorter names for these CSS elements.
We already have network latency/transmission issues due to the size
of our existing CSS files because they cannot utilize browser compression.
Long names in the CSS definitions lead to large CSS files and noticably
slower download times. Additionally the "source" HTML pages
that refer to the CSS's will be noticably larger as a result of these long
names.
To give a concrete example, consider a centralized Portal server configuration,
ie HQ/MOC, with a remote client in Singapore, operating over a fairly standard
200ms latency network. Transmitting a 10k CSS file will cause ~6
round trips due to network startup costs.
Overall loss due to network Round trips = 220 * 6 or ~1.3s
