Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-devel - Re: [cc-devel] MozCC 2.3.9 Available for Testing

cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Nathan R. Yergler" <nathan AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Luis Villa <luis AT tieguy.org>
  • Cc: "cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org" <cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-devel] MozCC 2.3.9 Available for Testing
  • Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:12:17 -0500

Luis Villa wrote:
On 1/22/07, Nathan R. Yergler <nathan AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
I admittedly didn't do much testing without MozCC installed v. with it
installed, but rather between the old and new version. So I'll take a
look as well and see if its something I might have missed.

FWIW, I've been using mozcc religiously (given the conflict, I
disabled operator, not mozcc ;) so my first comparison was between old
and new mozcc.


So I've taken another look at this and haven't been able to track down anything firm. Experimenting with MozCC 2.3.9 v. No-MozCC, there *may* be a subtle difference in load speed for mail.google.com, but not enough that I think I'd notice if I weren't looking for it. No noticeable difference looking @ tieguy.org/blog (which I believe is one of the sites you said displayed the behavior). Anyone know of a way to instrument Firefox to get firmer numbers on things like this?

Its a little difficult to track down what's going on with the extension on gmail, since there's so much content generated with Javascript. But in an effort to streamline things I did a build of MozCC with no console logging at all. You can find it at http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/software/mozcc/download/mozcc-2.3.9.1.xpi. Let me know if it does a better job in terms of performance.

Thanks,

Nathan

Luis

Luis Villa wrote:
> On 1/22/07, Nathan R. Yergler <nathan AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>> An updated version of MozCC is now available for testing. Version 2.3.9
>> is a recommended update as it resolves a number of outstanding issues
>> including:
>>
>> * Rewrite of the RDFa extraction engine which no longer pollutes
>> Javascript prototypes
>> * Performance enhancements when extracting RDFa from documents
>> * Interoperability fixes with other extensions
>
> For what it is worth, Nathan, this fixes the interoperability problems
> I had with Operator[1] but the new plugin seems to completely degrade
> ffox performance on most of the pages I used- took several times
> longer to load my blog and mail.google.com. This happens with or
> without Operator installed, so it isn't the result of an interaction
> with Operator.
>
> Is anyone else seeing this? I don't have time (class shortly) to
> uninstall/disable *all* of my plugins, but I'm guessing if Nathan
> didn't see it it must be an interaction with some other plugin, so
> I'll have to back everything out later tonight if no one else is
> seeing it.
>
> Luis
>
> [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/4106/
> _______________________________________________
> cc-devel mailing list
> cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel


--
Nathan R. Yergler
Senior Software Engineer
Creative Commons

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:NathanYergler



--
Nathan R. Yergler
Senior Software Engineer
Creative Commons

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:NathanYergler




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page