Yes, rollbacking probably is the safest choice,
As I implied in the mail, this was really meant as a experimental effort, to see if people on slower machines noticed the effects I was (pre)anticipating.
I really don't see how an extra intersect: per Morph (containing submorphs) can make such a big difference...

I'll definately post another update sometime in the future, I don't know when I'll have to look into it though.
<rant>
To me, the way it is right now seems unacceptable, there's really no reason to write a "smart" drawOn: routine for morphs that are likely to end up as a subMorph (saaaay, the TextMorph which I started investigating in the first place), as they have to redraw the entire area anyways.
This leads to a bad cycle in morph development;
"As long as at minimum the area we want to redraw is marked as, it's fine. There's no performance gain from reporting a more accurate area anyways".
So you end up with "sloppy" damage rects for new morphs, which leads to more to fix if it IS changed, and slower performance for those whom redrawing the entire area rather than a subsection IS expensive.
</rant>

Cheers,
Henry


On 27.05.2009 19:44, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: 
Thanks for reporting.
Henrik?
I could rollback the changes.

Stef

On May 27, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Gary Chambers wrote:

  
Performance of UI seems poor after 832 integration.

http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=832

Regards, Gary

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

    


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project